Matt Davies for April 11, 2016

Said tax code written by some of their other toys; Congressmen.

That is exactly why the majority of politicians hate the flat tax. Gives the super rich less of a reason to invest in them.

I’m guessing that the tax code is their favorite toy as it offers easy access to all their other toys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk.This is one reason politicians give preference to lobbyists and “donors”. Telemarketing is rough work.

No doubt that tax code and loop holes are used by liberals, but your saying not conservatives?You do not take any deductions?There is nothing wrong about playing by the rules to your advantage and apply to all. The problem is the rules..Dems wrote most of the tax code, prove it..The same thing with foundation, money, lobbying, and campaign financing. The rules are the problem. .Take campaign financing, you want a candidate and rich people on one side of the political spectrum to handicap themselves because they do not like the rules. In order to change the rules you have to win. The chance of you winning does not increase if you handicap yourself..But you and me, we both know that liberals are lying, cheating hypocrites. You know this because you are a fair minded conservative.

Simple fact, of the thousands of pages in those tax codes written by Congress, over 90% are EXEMPTIONS, not taxes. Guess who benefits most from those exemptions?

Let us see Trump’s taxes.

“Bush tax cuts”Let me guess, written by Democrats?The major cause of “Obama’s deficits”.

“Simple fact, of the thousands of pages in those tax codes written by Congress, over 90% are EXEMPTIONS, not taxes. Guess who benefits most from those exemptions?”

Another simple fact is that the Republicans/Fox “news” viewers believe that a ‘flat’ tax will result in a simplified tax code and that Congress would willingly give up their primary means of awarding payoffs.

How many bipartisan/blue ribbon commissions have there been that have identified massive amounts of tax expenditures that serve no purpose other than a direct benefit to a tiny number of individuals or businesses?

What percentage of those have gotten even as far as having hearings held?

Because a sales tax hits lower incomes harder. than an income tax does. Large corporations and the wealthy could buy elsewhere. Companies used to hire truck drivers but now they hire “independent contractors” so gas taxes, etc, are paid by the truck driver. Companies are trying to expand this “independent contractor” status to many of the jobs that have been filled by employees that get a salary and sometimes benefits.

It could be done, I suppose. Sales taxes do hit lower income people more than the wealthy, but leaving that aside for now…

Food, shelter (including utilities), clothing, transportation, communications, health care. Of those categories, what are not necessities, especially with a powerful lobby to offer justification?

Not only that, but anything that is provided through a process, manufactured or otherwise, some steps will be ‘necessities’ and guess where the profits will land?Not to mention the part about some steps taking place in The Caymans.

And what do the states that now rely on sales taxes do? Add it on top?

All speculation, of course, but you can see how complicated it could get just that quickly.

“But it could also be implemented far more simply than what we have today.”====True.But what we have today could also be implemented far more simply than it is.

And a sales tax/VAT would be subject to the same lobbying and influence peddling that we have now.

Maybe we need to somehow reduce the influence of money in our political system.

Good thinking..But, here is my problem..One of governments main functions is to provide services like military (security), infrastructure, courts, etc. This allows for consumption..Taking roads as a service. A poor person who does not have a car uses the road less. A wealthier person with a car uses the road more. Corporations and business use roads to get their goods to their business or customers, or get their customers into the store. Trucks do more damage to roads, than cars, and than bicycles or pedestrians which do little or none. Now who profits the most for having a well maintained infrastructure? They should pay more for the commons as they use it more to make a profit. It is not unlike paying for raw materials or labor..The same thing can be said of the military, the more wealth you have to loose the more you benefit from having a strong military. Corporations benefit more from a strong military. They benefit more from a strong judicial system to defend say patents..The big problem with taxes and government services is they have become disconnect. If you believe in the equitable free market, you believe that people should pay their fair share of the cost for the services provided as that is a consumption..Right now we have people wanting a big military and tax cuts. We just had two wars that were not paid for. Do you think a person in the US living hand to mouth is as worried about Iraq, Afghanistan, and the middle east as you and me..So lets say Bush had said we are going to pay for this war(s). The nation would then have a discussion about cost of the war and whether we really wanted to have this service. By not paying for the war the average American had no skin in the game. The only people that put anything in the game was the soldiers. Our big contribution is “Thank you for your service” and we are under funding post war medical. Congress has both the purse strings and the ability to declare war. This has become disconnected..Look if the majority of the US had said yes we want to go to war in Iraq and we are willing to pay for it then I would be OK even though I was against it. Because we live in a democracy. Bush did not want to have that discussion. Even said the Iraqs would pay for it. Outsourced logistics that cost us more and who profited?.I could go on about welfare and people starving and much more about disconnect….Taxes need to be connected to the services rendered by the government so that we can have an honest discussion of whether we want those services. The more you benefit from a service and can pay the more you should pay in taxes. That is the bases for a more democratic (vote with money) equitable free market taxes to services..A consumption tax does not connect the tax to government services and we would still have the problem of run away debt.

The IRS did a study that they put on their website. They counted the number of Returns that had ‘No Tax Owed’ and put them in ‘Adjusted Gross Income’ order.

It turns out that 17 million people that earn over $100K

pay ZERO Income Tax.

Yep. That is the product of income exemptions and spending deductions written into law by our Congress during R and D control spanning many decades. About $500 Billion in taxes are being lost EVERY year.

The people really paying the most taxes to AGI are the people in the middle.

I agee on usage fees where it can be implemented and people can afford it. In other words I do not think that National Parks should only be for those that have a certain amount of wealth..I have no problem with a gasoline tax but there are two buts. The weight of trucks is far more than autos and they do more damage to the roads. States try to mitigate this by having weigh stations but they are not open 24 -7. I can think of maybe some more efficient ways of addressing this. The other but is that fees raised to maintain and build roads actually cover the cost and not be diverted. .I agree on the military. There are consequences to actions and inactions. Nobody knows which would be worse in any given situation because you can not compare as the path not taken is only a guess. But like you my biggest problem with military and wars is the public must put their money where their mouth is..I have a long list of other things. Like one of the functions of the government is insurance. It is basically a big insurance company. Lots of different safety nets. People expect that so lets just do it. For example after every major natural disaster, people (Rs and Ds), towns, cities all want to be called a natural disaster area and have help from the federal government to rebuild, so lets just build it in like an insurance company. Assess based on likely hood, damage, and cost of rebuilding. People and communities would pay different premiums base on the assessment. Maybe it is not worth building on a flood plain..Same thing with health insurance. The health industry free market competitiveness does not exist. It is a race to the top. Everyone use healthcare including the very poor which use emergency rooms the most expensive. So we just deal with this. I am for single payer base insurance and people can buy more health insurance above if they want or pay more for above base health care directly. We need to bring competition into the health care market. The government needs to be allowed to negotiate drug prices just like other insurance companies..For me it is just about understanding the problem and then dealing with it in the best way possible. I may not like that people want government help after a natural disaster and think why did they not buy enough private insurance or build there, but they do want federal government help. So lets just face it and do it like insurance.

And this surprises… no one, ever.