FICA You
The DC Liar wanted me to get e-pissy. Here we go.
I’ve been in and out of this semi-heated conversation on ChrisB’s most righteous blog on the flat tax. Old Dog, Chris and the DC Liar really pushed my buttons with this stuff so everyone seems to be doing their job. ChrisB got me all lit up (apologies to the National) after I suggested that as appealing as any argument for tax reform sounds, the history of these things is they have been put forth by liars (not the DC Liar), thieves, schnooks or incompetent boobs. Consider what I thought to be a decent response to Chris’ question about the flat tax. I said:
“Here's the thing I would caution ChrisB or anyone about...a large part of politics is about winning the argument. I've won a helluva lot of arguments in my time, and there is no proof that I've been right on all or half of them.The art of rhetoric (this does not have to be a pejorative) suggests that in order to persuade someone to do an action that you want them to do, you want to first make that action/thing seem (or sound) possible. Again, this isn't an argument against the flat tax per se but just a call to be wary of arguments you like.A lot of people thought the 16th Amendment would level the economic playing field between rich and poor in America, create a greater, more responsive democracy at the national level...they thought it sounded like it made good sense. It was fair, it sounded like a way to redistribute wealth (when these words sounded better to American ears)...If they put the income tax amendment to a vote today - would we the great grandchildren of the we the people who sort of said it sounded like a good idea happily rally around this tax reform? Are we all ready to stand up and re-ratify it?”
So I thought this was a decent reminder that politics, public debate, even from former presidential hopefuls is about image and winning the argument, support etc…and the better or more equitable an argument sounds, the more suspicious I am of it. I am a pretender at this philosophy bullshit, I know even less about my faith (I usually defer on serious faith questions to my wife, she’s the smart one). But I think I actually have some common sense. This was my common sense response to someone who argues, to solve a complex problem we have to get back to basics, try something simple. All I did was tip my toe in, but Chris (being my brother from another mother) got me revved up. He responded:
“Ed, I hear you. I was persuaded and I'm looking for the counterpoint - still haven't heard one.”
Grrrrrr, I love ChrisB, but Grrrrrrrr!
I’m too damned competitive to be a good Christian.
Now at a certain point, the conversation got so out of hand that Devin and I found we were in agreement on the way the duplicitous fucks that wear the blue ties and call themselves Christians usurp Scripture for the sake of their dastardly political agenda. Yes, things have gotten out of hand when Devin and I are in agreement about such things.
But there were a variety of opinions that flew in from all corners. I kept jumping back in because I was caught up in the frenzy. I forgot my original reservations about the whole subject – I DON’T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE FLAT TAX. Old Dog sort of invited me in to the whole thing (he’d probably invite Dracula to a Longerburger BasketBall Party too)…he said:
“EdP has told me why he thinks a flat tax is a bad idea, but I can't remember it exactly. So, I'm hoping that he jumps in here very soon.”
Now that I think about it, in the only discussion I remember having with the Old Dog about the flat tax I said something similar to the argument above: ‘If it sounds like a great idea, fair to everyone, I’d be careful that some snaky shit is going on’
Again, not my brightest moment (drawing a big green penis on Bill Garver’s chest at the Metro, that was pretty good). So now I’m knee deep into this great conversation Chris’ instigated we’re talking about economic justice, wealth, meritocracy, the way the world ought to work vs. the way the world should work, the promise of hard work vs the realities of working for a living and trying to retire…all the usual suspects weighed in and put forth some good arguments.
Trendite even played the Paul Tsongas card. (Tsongas by the way, in my spell-check)
So now I’ve been tweaked by some comments and I’m in there swinging away like the dumb ass that I am. We’ve been arguing back and forth about this shit since band practice last week. I thought, ‘I’ll break my 10 minute rule, go back and read Chris’ initial post.’ After a second, somewhat more careful reading I remember what bugged me initially. I quickly forgot it as I threw myself into the argument. This was Chris’ initial presentation of the Forbes flat tax proposal:
“The general notion would be to abolish the IRS as it is and simplify the tax code so that you'd only need to fill out a simple questionaire to do your taxes each year. His proposal is to tax everyone exactly 17% if they make $46,000 or more in a year. I'm struggling to find out what the down side is to this plan. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.”
See what Chris did? Any of the regular readers work on one or both of the Forbes’ campaigns recognize the error here? No? Me neither. It sounds in the paragraph above that Forbes is proposing a tax based on income where everyone who made $46,000 or more a year would pay an INCOME TAX of 17%. If I wasn’t such a dork and didn’t want to dive in and argue this shit on my own terms, I would’ve remembered what I think I knew at some point (probably from the Forbes ’96 failed bid for the R nomination). The Forbes flat tax proposal was not an income tax proposal. It was meant to replace the income tax, it was something like this:
“Under Steve Forbes’ plan for his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign, income tax would be replaced by a consumption tax. That is, there would be a tax on spending only (income minus savings). A family of four would pay no tax on the first $42,000 dollars spent. Spending above that amount would be taxed at a flat rate of 17% (if the tax is included as part of the tax base) or 20.5% (if the tax is on top of the base), so that a family of four that spends $43,000 dollars would forfeit $205 to the government.”
Most of the readers and bloggers seem to like the wiki, we need some common sources to carry on some of these conversations. I don’t have the haughty nose up in the air attitude toward the wiki – if you want to double check my shit on the Forbes flat tax proposal help yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
If the wiki can be believed (and I see no reason to doubt it on something like this…the wiki’s got to know more about this than all our dumb asses put together) we can all see that whatever the virtues or defects of the flat CONSUMPTION TAX proposal, there’s no way this shit can pay for all the other things govt does including Medicare and Social Security. That’s why when Forbes ran in 2000 and earlier, he put his tax reform proposal in along side of SS reform and radical Medicare reform.
This is not an attack on the initial post or how informed my dear friend ChrisB is. I missed it and argued along with everyone else. Just a reminder that my original warning is a good one. Things are never as simple as 17% on $46,000 (or $43,000) or more per year.
Maddux just duked Furcal with an inside move. I’ll add MadDog (still don’t know why they call him that) to the list of things I don’t hate about the Cubs.
Oh, back to this tax shit. The more I read the wiki, the more I thought, wait, I remember something different re Forbes and his simple flat tax plan. Maybe Steener and others who stick it to the wiki (that just sounds dirty, sorry Steener) are right. I forget when this was said:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html
So here it’s $36,000 and it is an INCOME TAX – 17%, but only for income after $36,000.
Maddog just got an RBI single, I’ve really made a joke of my ten minute rule for the blogs, but I don’t care. Now I’m having fun.
Maybe Chris’ initial formulation is as good as any of the ones Steve Forbes has put out. Get it? The error wasn’t Chris’. There are five or six different versions of the flat tax proposal but forth by FORBES himself, or his people. So let’s go with what Chris said:
"His proposal is to tax everyone exactly 17% if they make $46,000 or more in a year. I'm struggling to find out what the down side is to this plan. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.”
Simple. How does Forbes or the mysterious people who will replace the IRS (by the way getting rid of the IRS sounds like a good idea – but who are going to collect the taxes? Not to mention the lost job...let’s not forget the entire industry dedicated to dealing with taxes, accountants, lawyers, officers of the court, bank officers Am I defending the IRS, tax attorneys, and H&R Block? Man, I’m crazier than I thought.
Oh, the “simple” I forgot to answer. How does Forbes calculate, or maybe more to the point – define income? Here’s why the tax code became so unwieldy, as the SC Liar (SC Liar, who the hell is that? Steve Spurrier???) – the DC Liar put it, those with greater income have the resources to manipulate the tax code. Apparently with great power comes great responsibility, but with greater income – not so much. If they could do it to create greater deductions under the old scheme, who’s to say they can’t do it to redefine income under the Forbes plan (unless he plans to abolish lawyers at the same time he gets rid of the IRS). But there is shit that is debatable in this portion of my response.
FICA is the FUCKA here. DC Liar was right at the end of Chris’ comment field:
“Only on a blog comment field could a discussion on a tax proposal turn into a culture war with religious overtones.”
Yeah, we started talking about all this other shit (me included, but ChrisB and Old Dog started it…ChrisB bashing the religious right in America, then seeming to paint all Christians with a broad brush, Old Dog defending some of those who call themselves Christian conservatives, and for all the reasons I will go into later, they do not deserve his noble defense on Chris’ blog or anywhere) oh, because we (me is part of that we) are in over our heads and might not be capable of making common sense out of this tax legerdemain, which was part of my initial common sense remarks. We can’t really begin a conversation about tax reform (simple or otherwise) without talking about what is to become of FICA. I raised some questions on Chris’ blog about payroll taxes, but only after I had spewed all this other gobbledeeegookk again, a sure sign that I did not know what I was talking about.
FICA taxes pay for all sorts of things that government needs and shows no signs of not needing now or any time in the near future. FICA taxes begin with dollar one. FICA taxes top out at $90,000 and you can make a whole different set of arguments here – I’ve heard Devin make some good ones in the past. Geez, things are getting goofy when Devin and I are agreeing on more junk.
The point is, the first thing I should’ve said to Chris is what about FICA? What does Forbes do with FICA. Instead the argument dribbled in at the end. By the way, Josh is probably the only other person who will recognize that I have stolen some of the articles in this blog entry from Mike Kinsley (not the guy with the sexy report). He’s a columnist from the Washington Post and I hope nobody else here will claim to be regular readers of the Post. C’mon people, you’re better than that.
You know what, I’m gonna really break my 10 minute rule, go back and read the comments from Chris’ blog just to make sure that no one brought up FICA.
And Chris, if you post a comment here that you still haven’t heard a counterpoint, my head is going to explode.
I’ve been in and out of this semi-heated conversation on ChrisB’s most righteous blog on the flat tax. Old Dog, Chris and the DC Liar really pushed my buttons with this stuff so everyone seems to be doing their job. ChrisB got me all lit up (apologies to the National) after I suggested that as appealing as any argument for tax reform sounds, the history of these things is they have been put forth by liars (not the DC Liar), thieves, schnooks or incompetent boobs. Consider what I thought to be a decent response to Chris’ question about the flat tax. I said:
“Here's the thing I would caution ChrisB or anyone about...a large part of politics is about winning the argument. I've won a helluva lot of arguments in my time, and there is no proof that I've been right on all or half of them.The art of rhetoric (this does not have to be a pejorative) suggests that in order to persuade someone to do an action that you want them to do, you want to first make that action/thing seem (or sound) possible. Again, this isn't an argument against the flat tax per se but just a call to be wary of arguments you like.A lot of people thought the 16th Amendment would level the economic playing field between rich and poor in America, create a greater, more responsive democracy at the national level...they thought it sounded like it made good sense. It was fair, it sounded like a way to redistribute wealth (when these words sounded better to American ears)...If they put the income tax amendment to a vote today - would we the great grandchildren of the we the people who sort of said it sounded like a good idea happily rally around this tax reform? Are we all ready to stand up and re-ratify it?”
So I thought this was a decent reminder that politics, public debate, even from former presidential hopefuls is about image and winning the argument, support etc…and the better or more equitable an argument sounds, the more suspicious I am of it. I am a pretender at this philosophy bullshit, I know even less about my faith (I usually defer on serious faith questions to my wife, she’s the smart one). But I think I actually have some common sense. This was my common sense response to someone who argues, to solve a complex problem we have to get back to basics, try something simple. All I did was tip my toe in, but Chris (being my brother from another mother) got me revved up. He responded:
“Ed, I hear you. I was persuaded and I'm looking for the counterpoint - still haven't heard one.”
Grrrrrr, I love ChrisB, but Grrrrrrrr!
I’m too damned competitive to be a good Christian.
Now at a certain point, the conversation got so out of hand that Devin and I found we were in agreement on the way the duplicitous fucks that wear the blue ties and call themselves Christians usurp Scripture for the sake of their dastardly political agenda. Yes, things have gotten out of hand when Devin and I are in agreement about such things.
But there were a variety of opinions that flew in from all corners. I kept jumping back in because I was caught up in the frenzy. I forgot my original reservations about the whole subject – I DON’T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE FLAT TAX. Old Dog sort of invited me in to the whole thing (he’d probably invite Dracula to a Longerburger BasketBall Party too)…he said:
“EdP has told me why he thinks a flat tax is a bad idea, but I can't remember it exactly. So, I'm hoping that he jumps in here very soon.”
Now that I think about it, in the only discussion I remember having with the Old Dog about the flat tax I said something similar to the argument above: ‘If it sounds like a great idea, fair to everyone, I’d be careful that some snaky shit is going on’
Again, not my brightest moment (drawing a big green penis on Bill Garver’s chest at the Metro, that was pretty good). So now I’m knee deep into this great conversation Chris’ instigated we’re talking about economic justice, wealth, meritocracy, the way the world ought to work vs. the way the world should work, the promise of hard work vs the realities of working for a living and trying to retire…all the usual suspects weighed in and put forth some good arguments.
Trendite even played the Paul Tsongas card. (Tsongas by the way, in my spell-check)
So now I’ve been tweaked by some comments and I’m in there swinging away like the dumb ass that I am. We’ve been arguing back and forth about this shit since band practice last week. I thought, ‘I’ll break my 10 minute rule, go back and read Chris’ initial post.’ After a second, somewhat more careful reading I remember what bugged me initially. I quickly forgot it as I threw myself into the argument. This was Chris’ initial presentation of the Forbes flat tax proposal:
“The general notion would be to abolish the IRS as it is and simplify the tax code so that you'd only need to fill out a simple questionaire to do your taxes each year. His proposal is to tax everyone exactly 17% if they make $46,000 or more in a year. I'm struggling to find out what the down side is to this plan. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.”
See what Chris did? Any of the regular readers work on one or both of the Forbes’ campaigns recognize the error here? No? Me neither. It sounds in the paragraph above that Forbes is proposing a tax based on income where everyone who made $46,000 or more a year would pay an INCOME TAX of 17%. If I wasn’t such a dork and didn’t want to dive in and argue this shit on my own terms, I would’ve remembered what I think I knew at some point (probably from the Forbes ’96 failed bid for the R nomination). The Forbes flat tax proposal was not an income tax proposal. It was meant to replace the income tax, it was something like this:
“Under Steve Forbes’ plan for his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign, income tax would be replaced by a consumption tax. That is, there would be a tax on spending only (income minus savings). A family of four would pay no tax on the first $42,000 dollars spent. Spending above that amount would be taxed at a flat rate of 17% (if the tax is included as part of the tax base) or 20.5% (if the tax is on top of the base), so that a family of four that spends $43,000 dollars would forfeit $205 to the government.”
Most of the readers and bloggers seem to like the wiki, we need some common sources to carry on some of these conversations. I don’t have the haughty nose up in the air attitude toward the wiki – if you want to double check my shit on the Forbes flat tax proposal help yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
If the wiki can be believed (and I see no reason to doubt it on something like this…the wiki’s got to know more about this than all our dumb asses put together) we can all see that whatever the virtues or defects of the flat CONSUMPTION TAX proposal, there’s no way this shit can pay for all the other things govt does including Medicare and Social Security. That’s why when Forbes ran in 2000 and earlier, he put his tax reform proposal in along side of SS reform and radical Medicare reform.
This is not an attack on the initial post or how informed my dear friend ChrisB is. I missed it and argued along with everyone else. Just a reminder that my original warning is a good one. Things are never as simple as 17% on $46,000 (or $43,000) or more per year.
Maddux just duked Furcal with an inside move. I’ll add MadDog (still don’t know why they call him that) to the list of things I don’t hate about the Cubs.
Oh, back to this tax shit. The more I read the wiki, the more I thought, wait, I remember something different re Forbes and his simple flat tax plan. Maybe Steener and others who stick it to the wiki (that just sounds dirty, sorry Steener) are right. I forget when this was said:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html
So here it’s $36,000 and it is an INCOME TAX – 17%, but only for income after $36,000.
Maddog just got an RBI single, I’ve really made a joke of my ten minute rule for the blogs, but I don’t care. Now I’m having fun.
Maybe Chris’ initial formulation is as good as any of the ones Steve Forbes has put out. Get it? The error wasn’t Chris’. There are five or six different versions of the flat tax proposal but forth by FORBES himself, or his people. So let’s go with what Chris said:
"His proposal is to tax everyone exactly 17% if they make $46,000 or more in a year. I'm struggling to find out what the down side is to this plan. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.”
Simple. How does Forbes or the mysterious people who will replace the IRS (by the way getting rid of the IRS sounds like a good idea – but who are going to collect the taxes? Not to mention the lost job...let’s not forget the entire industry dedicated to dealing with taxes, accountants, lawyers, officers of the court, bank officers Am I defending the IRS, tax attorneys, and H&R Block? Man, I’m crazier than I thought.
Oh, the “simple” I forgot to answer. How does Forbes calculate, or maybe more to the point – define income? Here’s why the tax code became so unwieldy, as the SC Liar (SC Liar, who the hell is that? Steve Spurrier???) – the DC Liar put it, those with greater income have the resources to manipulate the tax code. Apparently with great power comes great responsibility, but with greater income – not so much. If they could do it to create greater deductions under the old scheme, who’s to say they can’t do it to redefine income under the Forbes plan (unless he plans to abolish lawyers at the same time he gets rid of the IRS). But there is shit that is debatable in this portion of my response.
FICA is the FUCKA here. DC Liar was right at the end of Chris’ comment field:
“Only on a blog comment field could a discussion on a tax proposal turn into a culture war with religious overtones.”
Yeah, we started talking about all this other shit (me included, but ChrisB and Old Dog started it…ChrisB bashing the religious right in America, then seeming to paint all Christians with a broad brush, Old Dog defending some of those who call themselves Christian conservatives, and for all the reasons I will go into later, they do not deserve his noble defense on Chris’ blog or anywhere) oh, because we (me is part of that we) are in over our heads and might not be capable of making common sense out of this tax legerdemain, which was part of my initial common sense remarks. We can’t really begin a conversation about tax reform (simple or otherwise) without talking about what is to become of FICA. I raised some questions on Chris’ blog about payroll taxes, but only after I had spewed all this other gobbledeeegookk again, a sure sign that I did not know what I was talking about.
FICA taxes pay for all sorts of things that government needs and shows no signs of not needing now or any time in the near future. FICA taxes begin with dollar one. FICA taxes top out at $90,000 and you can make a whole different set of arguments here – I’ve heard Devin make some good ones in the past. Geez, things are getting goofy when Devin and I are agreeing on more junk.
The point is, the first thing I should’ve said to Chris is what about FICA? What does Forbes do with FICA. Instead the argument dribbled in at the end. By the way, Josh is probably the only other person who will recognize that I have stolen some of the articles in this blog entry from Mike Kinsley (not the guy with the sexy report). He’s a columnist from the Washington Post and I hope nobody else here will claim to be regular readers of the Post. C’mon people, you’re better than that.
You know what, I’m gonna really break my 10 minute rule, go back and read the comments from Chris’ blog just to make sure that no one brought up FICA.
And Chris, if you post a comment here that you still haven’t heard a counterpoint, my head is going to explode.
posted by edP | 9:11 PM
25 Comments:
Not "articles" - I meant arguments from Kinsley. Damn I suck.
Yeah, I went back and read the comments. Not a whole brain among all the sons of bitches who weighed in (me included). And anyone who talked about the fairness or lack there of associated with payroll taxes forgot - that that is a huge source of income that pays weekly bills that have got to get paid. Joe was close when he began saying what about money that is taken out of everyones' paycheck weekly or twice a week...
...I thought, Old Dog saved the day...then it just became "that's a forced loan to the government" which may sound unfair but again, pretty much how government pays the bills . Without this regular source of income for the gvt, you can curtail all the spending you like, a whole bunch of important shit ain't a-gonna get paid. Again, I don't have the answer here...but dammit it's taken us this long to get to the right question re: Forbes' simple solution.
Now I'm going to listen to Won't Get Fooled Again and smash a tennis racket.
I meant every two weeks above -
ajuststupid
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At the beginning of "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking says. "... for each mathematical equation, I will lose half of my audience."
Well... You lost something like 90%. This inane peudo-science claptrap makes me wanna slap someone. These numbers mean nothing unless you are promoting them.
The Federal Budget is BIG. Pretend to know it and I'll slap you.
We don't need a flat tax any more than we need any other new tax program. It's just a new way to say, "Vote for me." "Flat Tax", "Social Security Reform", "Lock Box". and on and on are campaign catch phrases and little else so I wouldn't get to worked up over it.
First, thank goodness I wasn't at work yesterday. I missed all this stuff.
Second, dude, I love ya and don't mind reading every thought that knocks around your noggin, but, that was a shitload of verbiage in order to make a few small points (with a little lecture on Rhetoric, to boot!)
I imagine part of any reforming of the tax code would involve depriving the government. I think that's the idea, right? go 'kosher' on the 'pork,' roll back the New Deal, etc. I'm not defending that necessarily...but yeah, of course that's part of it.
Not "trusting" the 'G' with a flat tax...so what? Do you trust them now?
Ed, I was not so much defending Christian Conservatives entirely, as I was merely pointing out that not everyone you assume is a Christian Conservative is one. Even for those who are, that label can be very misleading; I, after all, am (compared to most of my peers) conservative and a Christian. Although not much a better Christian than I, and certainly more conservative, our VP's tax disclosure shows that he dropped a sizable chunk of change last year for DC school kids.
As for you defending the IRS, you are crazy! I don't care who the hell replaces them, as long as it's not Homeland Security or a newly created Dept. of Homeland Consumption Tax. I wouldn't worry about the jobs of accountants. Tell you what, if it looks like they are in danger of losing work, we can revise any new tax law to make it sufficiently complex enough to ensure their job security. Again, in the words of EN, "You're Crazy!"
Did anyone else hear the comments made by the lead IRS investigator after the George Ryan verdict? I did, and I've been trying to find a clip or transcript of it since. In an effort to reinforce the IRS's resolve to show that nobody is immune from punishment for tax fraud, he basically delivered the most frightening tax scare message to Joe Public (that's me) that I've ever heard! I was ready to lock my door and hide under the bed! I was left with the very clear understanding that these fuckers are going to come and get their money no matter what, and there is not a damn thing that we can do about it.
PDawg, re this:
"Second, dude, I love ya and don't mind reading every thought that knocks around your noggin, but, that was a shitload of verbiage in order to make a few small points (with a little lecture on Rhetoric, to boot!)"
uh, sorry. I really violated the 10 minute rule. But I wanted those who didn't read the ChrisB stuff to get what I thought were some of the highlights.
Re this:
"I imagine part of any reforming of the tax code would involve depriving the government. I think that's the idea, right? go 'kosher' on the 'pork,' roll back the New Deal, etc. I'm not defending that necessarily...but yeah, of course that's part of it."
That wasn't my point - I just suggested, what are we going to do about the daily and longterm shit we need the FICA taxes for. Cutting the pork (in my limited understanding) ain't gonna get the job done if we don't have the FICA taxes that everyone pays for. I'l cut the verbage and say this:
Just trimming the fat won't get us a flat tax.
Fair or not, the govt gets a ton of its daily opperating expenses (Michael, please don't slap me I'm not claiming to understand all of it) and funds to keep SSecurity Medi other shit going from FICA stuff. The greatest source of revenue (as I understand it) comes from the paycheck of every worker. While it sounds fair to say the rich should pay their fair share - there is no evidence that 17% of incomes $46,000 and above is going to make up for lost revenues.
We can say the current system is unfair or the great body of American workers foot the bill for most everything...um, but that's where the money is.
I have only a small point to make: I'm sure (after having done zero research) that at the time of the 16th Am. the codification of tax laws was simple & brief, and it's only over time that the Unwieldy Behemoth (not a bad band name) has evolved. I would expect any new approach to follow the same arc: one page for starters, followed by a gazillion pages of footnotes, then half a gazillion lawsuits, mixed in with two gazillion barely noticeable tweakings via Congress, and by the time your grandson is feeding you jello he'll be complaining about the flat tax morass and wouldn't it be better if we had a system graduated by income level.
See, but nobody is really interested in talking about the serious point here (which even I don't claim to fully understand - don't hit me Michael). We the people foot the bill because of our sheer numbers and we do this through payroll type taxes. Making it "fair" doesn't help us make the bills.
Cutting the "pork" required to pay for the Forbes scheme or most flat tax schemes that I've heard means cutting Social Security, Medicare, you know, pork like that.
Sorry, one more thing. I'm pretty much afraid to disagree with the DC Liar, but when he says this
“Only on a blog comment field could a discussion on a tax proposal turn into a culture war with religious overtones.”
I have to say - before blog comment fields, there was Otto's, and before that AmEx, and before that, the Douglas Hall Lobby. It's one of the things I love most about my DK friends - there's never a shortage of hearty conversation. And _every_ conversation can come to religion eventually.
All this chit chat and we still have yet to hear a decent (theoretical) argument against the flat tax (sorry Sultan but rich people are rich and they generally always will be) while there are plenty of great reasons why a flat tax is suprememly fair, beneficial, and certainly preferable to the industry that has built up allowing the super-rich to exploit, skirt, and play the system.
But we can all agree that the devil's in the details, that implementation of it is scary, and that it could possibly turn out to be just as exploitable.
I'm not Mr. Libertarian by any stretch, but I think it's obvious that Congress is addicted to our money, and that many programs started for noble reasons have created new problems. Things like the War on Drugs or public education , now ensconced bureaucracies, are insulated from reform because they've become footballs to punt back and forth at election time. (I'm not even getting into $200 hammers or $2 billion ink pens. Or NASA--"hey--outer space contains rocks, too!" heh heh). I understand less than you do about this stuff. Which I'm sure is why proposals involving a certian amount of upheaval seem so attractive.
The FICA shit is not chit chat. The stuff about our previous coversation - how none of us know what the fuck we are atlking about - yeah there's some chit chat in that.
PDawg - I'm not going you a theoretical argument against the flat tax. I'm presenting the beginning of a practical won.
Libertarian sounding equity doesn't pay the bills...we the people do.
The devil's in the details, but so is everything else.
I meant practical "one"
...could that have been a Frooodian slip - I am that much of an asshole.
Don't hit me Michael.
what effect would a flat tax have on charitable giving (assuming that deduction would be taken away). us rich basturds are pretty stingy unless we have some sort of incentive to give! CM
Who the hell are Josh and Joe?
Oh shit. I really got into writing this steaming pile of crap.
How'd I spell Tsongas? Life's too short for spell check.
When NH secedes, we're gonna fix all this.
2 last points:
1. I agree FICA is a bitch and it's deception if that is not included in this tax plan. FICA is general fund money, it's an income tax plain and simple, BUT
2. I thought we were discussing the theoretical piece of the plan postulated fledglingtimes -- that it might be fairer to make a reasonable floor on taxes ($40k) and make it non-progressive after that. Whatever the rate we need to do that. Basically you should pay income taxes on what you earn over median.
Now you're right, doing that without fixing FICA doesn't do crap for Joe Q. Wal-Mart, cause all he's paying is FICA. So, if you want the reformulated plan, here it is: we stop raiding FICA for general fund crap, roll that stuff into the general revenue needs (where it belongs), and raise the flat tax to 25% or 27% or whatever you need to raise it to offset the lost FICA funds.
I'd maintain it's still fair. It says hey, to the extent you bootstrap yourself and your family to where you are self-sufficent, we're not going to make it any harder for you. But to the extent you are earning above median, we are going to take a portion of that to run the government. But it's a stable portion, so once you're over that hump, there's still incentive to earn more.
ok - finally, somebody wants to talk about FICA - and it appears that trendite might understand the problem a bit better so now I can learn something instead of getting all wound up.
Dammit - I've got to got to work.
I guess no one really wants to talk FICA. It's FICA fatigue.
We should restart this conversation in about a month and a half when people least expect it. Maybe use shorter posts.
Incidentally, mr. edp, you (and others) should submit your music to pandora.com. They are the true meritocracy, and they are about to rock the world of online broadcasting with some slick algorithms. (rock + algorithms = "geeking out").
Awesome...you know the internets gots those dope Al Gore Rhythms!
Trendite: I'm done w/ FICA too. Any problem this boring deserves to go unsolved. I've spent two days reading the Concord Coalition's stuff on FICA fed insurance policy, (as far as economic think tanks go, they sort of subscribe to the 'eat your peas' approach - when you make that much sense, all I have to say is *YAWN) methods for keeping the govt's hands off of this money so the already insufficient funds won't be raided further...not to mention the e-version of the tax code and the FICA paragraphs there. Man I've got to go back to smoking.
PDawg: Al Gore Ry...oh man you got me with that one. Bonus points for the PDawg for stinky pun directly relating to the comments above.
Good work all.
I still haven't heard... aw, I couldn't do it to ya.
Truth is, I was skeptical about Steve Forbes and his plan. Whenever something sounds too good to be true, there's a reason. I still think some significant reform is in order.
I didn't hear one word about FICA in the short time Forbsie was on the radio, for the record. That could be the snag. But Jeanz, I'd rather reform taxes to a lower, simplified system and then follow the arc than to start where we are and continue an arc that's already out of control. I'll fix my grandkids by not having any. HA!
ChrisB - you almost bastard.
Hey seriously, thanks for your offer to help with the flood. Turned out to be not so bad as you can probably tell from the post above.
Rock on.
Will we be taxed on this money?
Post a Comment
<< Home