How Tax Loopholes Weaken Society

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Anikdote, Feb 10, 2012.

  1. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pick a place, or make one up. Detail the conditions, and the desired result from NIT.

    Really? Why do people opposed to welfare donate to charity? Could it be they have more trust in charity to get that person back on their feet?

    They have seen how ineffective government employees are at doing the same thing?

    They have seen government rules that would rather pay unemployment for two years, rather tha support training for the jobs that exist?

    How, government has been managing the poor for 40 years, and the number have increased every year.

    Are we against the concept, or the total ineffectiveness? (except for insuring job security for government employees)
     
  2. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I won't do the former, I'm not an economist, I don't have training in econometrics so it couldn't possibly add to the conversation.

    The desired result I've already stated, combining our tax and benefits programs; in short ending all taxes and entitlement program other than the NIT, a single entity to replace the hoards of various tax collecting and benefit paying organization (ie IRS, medicare, medicaid, social security etc)


    Part of the reason government exists is to provide for the general welfare, this plan is a radical simplification and a massive reduction in the size of government. Your rant was sadly lacking any real rebuttal, just an emotional splurge about governmental inefficiencies. Congratulations on stating the obvious.

    I'm disappointed that instead of attacking the NIT you decided to go on an emotional tirade.
     
  3. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Emotional rant? Why do you think NIT doesn't exist? Government inefficiency!!!!!!

    You attach conservatives as the enemy, and ignore the real problem.
     
  4. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Because the people who would have to vote on it (congress) have no interest in passing it. They'd lose significant amounts of power to buy favors via the tax code.

    I didn't say anyone was the enemy, stop with the idiotic characterization that completely miss the point of the conversation. It was stated that conservatives in particular dislike the NIT because of certain features, none of which you've addressed, instead you elected to spew rhetorical bile. At the same time, the benefits of it are in line with core right wing tenants, particularly smaller government.

    If you bother responding again, try to put together something coherent.
     
  5. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The tax code is small part of what influences congress.

    NIT, as you describe it, would substantially improve the efficiency of government by eliminating duplicate, and competing programs. What is keeping the talking heads on the media from talking about it?

    Still attacking I see.

    What specific features do conservatives dislike about NIT?

    Does NIT penalize someone for getting a job? Or, earning over a arbitrary amount?
     
  6. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Completely disagree, it grants them the power to create deductions and loopholes, buying vote and acquiring campaign funding for creating them.

    It's an old idea and like any other type of tax reform, is easily demagogued.

    First they dislike that it'd need to be progressive to work. Second, the mandatory minimum income doesn't settle well with the folks that demonize every welfare program and despite this eliminating the inefficiencies with them, it's still not viewed favorably.
     
  7. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A drop in the bucket compared to regulation. If a company makes 20% profit, and pays 35% of that in taxes - tax code can save them 7% of taxable income. A regulation that limits competition, far more.

     
  8. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not sure there's any way to compare the two. I still disagree, the tax code is an easier pitch to voters than regulatory changes. Regulation likely brings in more money, but I believe tax breaks contribute more to re-elections.

    Still not progressive enough for some of those outlets.

    Like I said, it's not new it all. Developed in the 40's, reintroduced by Friedman to the US (in the 70's I think). If we were discussing this in any other section of this community you'd likely be met with either silence, because it doesn't have a catchy name like The Fair Tax or rebuttal something along the lines of: This is redistribution of wealth, that equals socialism.
     

Share This Page