Plane crashes into Austin office building

[Thatkidbob]

No, I mentioned the flat tax earlier. This is a consumption tax. A consumption tax on non necessary items (food, clothes under a certain dollar amount etc) is what I was referring to. They would pay the same percentage on a consumption tax.

With a flat income tax, again they would pay the same %.

either way, it is a much better wa to go than what we have now.

Libs would say it has a disproportionate effect on the poor...
Reps would oppose it because their corporate lobbyists would be against it...
Great system we have here

---

Anyways... While the guy was totally wrong for involving the lives of any other person in his suicide, I agree with him on a couple things. It sounds like the crux of his argument is that tax code is too complicated to be valid law, that since it cannot be understood it cannot underpin a valid contract, and that the system is slanted against the poor and middle class in favor of the wealthy and corporations (the wealthy, who have the money to exploit loopholes, and corporations, who don't actually pay taxes, but merely pass them on to consumers).

And then the bailouts... which should not have happened. Old/greedy/inflexible businesses who can no longer survive should not be given blood transfusions consisting of public dollars... They must be allowed to fall so that newer more innovative companies can arise.

Sigh...

 

[Vintage]

Because when people take the politics out of things they can see more clearly. That's for conservatives and lib..er progressives as well.

What exactly is "progressive" about taking my money from me?

Never understood that.

It's regressive. For me.

BTW: I love the idea of a consumption tax. Admittedly, I am not well versed on the plausibility of it (not so much if it would ever be implemented - it would not - but if it would be feasible...)

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

no.

The reason it is so dense is because the government has spent decades granting favors to individuals doing various things. Then when others use said favor, it is called a loophole.

Moronic post.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You would support a flat tax, which is innately non-progressive? Seriously? Color me shocked!

Yes, I would even support a tax break for corporations who keep jobs here rather than send them overseas. I know that contradicts flat tax, but in terms of the citizenry I favor a flat tax. However, if there shall be a tax system which favors someone, I would favor a tax that taxes the rich a higher rate than the poor.

But that's the whole problem. No matter what we do, with all the laws on the books, the rich can afford the tax lawyers who manipulate the laws and loopholes to favor them.

But yes, I would support a flat tax. But I will say that the idea is mere fantasy. Even if with a guy like the so-called great Ron Paul, it would never happen under the current political system. It would take too much to undo the Herculean flux that has already been created.

In other words, the laws will just keep growing and growing and growing and GROWING......

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Oh, and the above moronic post I mentioned is so misguided because the reason laws are manipulated is largely due to two things. (1) Precedents (2) Linguistic ambiguity that is inherent in every statute ever written.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Correct. That is why those who believe tax increases are never going to be the ones to help change the situation. We get one voice that matters and that's at the ballot box. Regardless of your political stripe, I think everyone would agree that the government takes too much, provides too little and mishandles most of it.

That is why smaller government is a step in the right direction.

I wish this were reality. I'm sad to say that I think this will never happen. Like the body of tax law, the body of government will keep growing as well. It's inevitable.

I like the idea in theory tho.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Libs would say it has a disproportionate effect on the poor...
Reps would oppose it because their corporate lobbyists would be against it...
Great system we have here

---

Anyways... While the guy was totally wrong for involving the lives of any other person in his suicide, I agree with him on a couple things. It sounds like the crux of his argument is that tax code is too complicated to be valid law, that since it cannot be understood it cannot underpin a valid contract, and that the system is slanted against the poor and middle class in favor of the wealthy and corporations (the wealthy, who have the money to exploit loopholes, and corporations, who don't actually pay taxes, but merely pass them on to consumers).

And then the bailouts... which should not have happened. Old/greedy/inflexible businesses who can no longer survive should not be given blood transfusions consisting of public dollars... They must be allowed to fall so that newer more innovative companies can arise.

Sigh...

:signmast: This. That's what capitalism is supposed to be about.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

What exactly is "progressive" about taking my money from me?

Never understood that.

It's regressive. For me.

BTW: I love the idea of a consumption tax. Admittedly, I am not well versed on the plausibility of it (not so much if it would ever be implemented - it would not - but if it would be feasible...)

Right. It's regressive for everyone, but some don't see it because they pay it.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Oh, and the above moronic post I mentioned is so misguided because the reason laws are manipulated is largely due to two things. (1) Precedents (2) Linguistic ambiguity that is inherent in every statute ever written.

We are talking about the tax code, which is simply a complex array of allowances granted for belonging to a certain class.

If it weren't for all the allowances, the language wouldn't be so easily open to interpretation.

And it wouldn't further increase the industry of lobbyists in our capital looking for further allowances to be added/exploited.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Slappin da bass. :laugh2:

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

We are talking about the tax code, which is simply a complex array of allowances granted for belonging to a certain class.

If it weren't for all the allowances, the language wouldn't be so easily open to interpretation.

And it wouldn't further increase the industry of lobbyists in our capital looking for further allowances to be added/exploited.

Yes, but don't forget about the importance of precedents, which become laws themselves each time a new case is decided. And that's what I'm referring to when I say the body of laws are a Herculean flux. Which is also what I interpreted to be included in what theo was saying. I don't see where he was wrong. And now you're pretty much saying the same thing we are.

You said, "no" and then went on to agree with us. LOL

 

[theogt]

No, I mentioned the flat tax earlier. This is a consumption tax. A consumption tax on non necessary items (food, clothes under a certain dollar amount etc) is what I was referring to. They would pay the same percentage on a consumption tax.

With a flat income tax, again they would pay the same %.

either way, it is a much better wa to go than what we have now.

I think the idea of having an income tax AND a sales tax at the same entity level is pretty undesirable.

 

[theogt]

the whole thing?

nope.

My point remains.

Didn't think so.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Yes, but don't forget about the importance of precedents, which become laws themselves each time a new case is decided. And that's what I'm referring to when I say the body of laws are a Herculean flux. Which is also what I interpreted to be included in what theo was saying. I don't see where he was wrong. And now you're pretty much saying the same thing we are.

You said, "no" and then went on to agree with us. LOL

I'm not agreeing with you.

Precedent only matters because the law is convoluted. I'm saying the tax code is convoluted because of the favors granted, adding to the code, which is now immense. So immense one doesn't need to read the entire thing to get his point across. We are arguing different positions.

 

[theogt]

I'm not agreeing with you.

Precedent only matters because the law is convoluted. I'm saying the tax code is convoluted because of the favors granted, adding to the code, which is now immense. So immense one doesn't need to read the entire thing to get his point across. We are arguing different positions.

The code isn't that thick, really. It's the regulations.

Of course, if you'd actually ever read it, you'd know. And if you include the regulations, it's really no different than any other body of law, such as securities regulation, environmental laws, etc.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I think the idea of having an income tax AND a sales tax at the same entity level is pretty undesirable.

I didn't say have BOTH. I prefer the consumption tax, but if I can't get that, I would rather have the flat tax. One or the other.

 

[theogt]

I didn't say have BOTH. I prefer the consumption tax, but if I can't get that, I would rather have the flat tax. One or the other.

Big on the regressive taxes, huh?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I'm not agreeing with you.

Precedent only matters because the law is convoluted. I'm saying the tax code is convoluted because of the favors granted, adding to the code, which is now immense. So immense one doesn't need to read the entire thing to get his point across. We are arguing different positions.

I didn't think so either. There are no different positions to be argued.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The code isn't that thick, really. It's the regulations.

Of course, if you'd actually ever read it, you'd know. And if you include the regulations, it's really no different than any other body of law, such as securities regulation, environmental laws, etc.

I'll disagree with that.

===
If you take Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer at their word, they are intelligent people, who have held important jobs in government.

And they couldn't figure out their taxes.

Former Sen. Daschle helped write tax laws. Killefer chaired the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board. Timothy Geithner, who now oversees the IRS, was an undersecretary of the Treasury.

But the U.S. tax code is 67,204 pages long — about as long as 112 copies of James Joyce's Ulysses. And just about as comprehensible.

There are reportedly 1,638 different tax forms, from the 1040 Short Form, to Form 8615, "Tax for Children Under Age 18 with Investment Income of More Than $1,700," which I wish pertained to our daughters.

The IRS estimates that a taxpayer needs 37 hours of time to prepare the basic short form. That's almost a full workweek.
If you are self-employed, they say it may take 80 hours to add up and document all of the deductions which, as Geithner, who tried to claim the cost of sending his children to summer camp as a child care expense, might tell you, you'd be an idiot not to include.

Warren Buffett likes to tell interviewers that he pays less than 20 percent in taxes on his income of billions, while his receptionist pays about 30 percent.

Maybe Buffet should lend her his accountants.

He says Congress should raise taxes for the higher income levels, including his own.

But Buffett could pay more taxes right now. He pays just 20 percent because he deploys lawyers and accountants to mine exemptions and deductions in the tax code, apparently preferring to pay millions to them to keep tens of millions or more from the U.S. Treasury.

That is not illegal or even evasive — just basic good sense. I wonder if increasing taxes while keeping a tax code so intricate that it stumped the new Treasury secretary will pay off for anyone except lawyers and accountants.

At least $300 billion of taxes reportedly go uncollected each year. Every new administration vows to correct that, and often says new spending programs won't increase the national debt because they'll rake in all those revenues.

But no administration does, in part, because the U.S. tax code is so tangled and intimidating, it is prohibitively expensive to try.
It has been years since the U.S. has had a serious debate about tax simplification, including a flat tax. Maybe President Obama's nominees can use their own experience to develop a tax code that's as simple as Dick and Jane, instead of Ulysses


Not necessarily you, but if you're interested in tax code youmay want to listen to this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100377301[FONT=georgia,times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

 

[theogt]

Many of those statements are factually incorrect (the ones that refer to the tax code without reference to the regulations), not to mention they mostly contradict one another (is it 40k pages or 1 million?). And notice that most do, however, refer to the regulations, which I specifically excluded.

The regulations are filled with thousands of factual examples and explanatory language (as well as substantive rules, obviously), which take up much of what people consider "the code." However, when lawyers refer to "the code," they do not refer to the regulations.

I could get my copy of the code out and measure how thick it is, but I may have burned it in the fireplace.

Edit: You edited all of it out and posted this article. The article is wrong. The code is not 60,000+ pages. And if it takes anyone 37 hours to fill out a 1040, it's because they can't read.