FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

A constitutional amendment didn't create the IRS, nor did it create the tax code in its current form. Congress did that. Therefore, it would not require an amendment or repealing the 16th Amendment to make substantive changes in the current system.

Whatever changes you'd like to see would involve extensive negotiations and these negotiations would be doomed from the start as Republicans would demand a package whose benefits would skew to their constituents ("job creators" (corporations, the wealthy)), whereas Democrats would demand the resulting package advantage their constituents at the expense of the GOP's constituents. These competing demands cannot be reconciled.

Instead of providing your desired end state for the tax code, show us instead how this can realistically be achieved. Otherwise, you're pissing in the wind.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

My comment about needing a constitutional amendment is sarcasm as in "Will Never Happen". Also to any simplification of the tax code, it would put a lot of CPAs and so called tax prepares out of business. And Intiut (Trubo Tax) will call a Fatwa on the IRS.

What bothers me about you response is the use of the term "progressives" which I take as an unnecessary dig like the Faux commentators often do. Show me an instance where "Progressives" are against simplified tax code. Very much like the incessant repeating of "Biden's Radical So************************t Agenda" and only dumb MAGAts buy that crap. Biden and "our economy" is doing great last I checked, and this after the disaster from Covid the last 24 months.

My bad. This sentence should have read:

“ I'd suggest that, at least historically, progressives have been the biggest enemy of a FLAT tax system because of the belief that a flat tax would not be progressive.”

Dems typically favor a tax system where tax rates increase as income increases.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

My bad. This sentence should have read:

“ I'd suggest that, at least historically, progressives have been the biggest enemy of a FLAT tax system because of the belief that a flat tax would not be progressive.”

Dems typically favor a tax system where tax rates increase as income increases.

A flat tax is, by definition, not progressive. That's why they call it flat.

[donquixote99]

A special use of the term progressive, progressive tax rates become progressively higher as you go up income levels. It is a separate sense of the word from 'progressive politics.' Flat tax schemes, of course, are disfavored by people of progressive politics because they let the rich off the hook at the expense of clobbering the middle class.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

A flat tax is, by definition, not progressive. That's why they call it flat.

Didn't I just say that? Is there an echo in here?

As I stated in an earlier post, there are proponents of a modified flat tax, where rates increase with income. I wouldn't be opposed to that idea, depending on how it would be implemented.

The virtue of a flat tax, to me anyway, isn't about the flat tax rate, or rates. It's about dispensing with the myriad deductions, credits, incentives, etc. it creates a very transparent system, and is much more predictable.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Whatever changes you'd like to see would involve extensive negotiations and these negotiations would be doomed from the start as Republicans would demand a package whose benefits would skew to their constituents ("job creators" (corporations, the wealthy)), whereas Democrats would demand the resulting package advantage their constituents at the expense of the GOP's constituents. These competing demands cannot be reconciled.

Instead of providing your desired end state for the tax code, show us instead how this can realistically be achieved. Otherwise, you're pissing in the wind.

Here's a novel idea. I've already said a lot in this portion of the thread. So, instead of having me post so you can do what you usually do and piss all over it without offering anything substantive of your own, why don't you share some of your own suggestions?

And by the way, I'm not pie in the sky enough to believe that something like this will happen as a result of Dems and Repubs sitting down and holding hands and agreeing to work toward something bigger than their own narrow interests. The current tax code wasn't built in a day, and it'll take some time and effort to make any major changes.

Groundwork needs to be laid to enable something like this. It starts with electing folks who support the idea. Getting rid of the tax favored status of campaign contributions, and PAC'S would also be helpful. We need to stop electing folks to Congress so that they can spend most of their time increasing their net worth.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Flat tax schemes, of course, are disfavored by people of progressive politics because they let the rich off the hook at the expense of clobbering the middle class.

Especially the rich progressives in Congress, and their Repub counterparts, who don't want to do anything to detail their personal gravy trains.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Especially the rich progressives in Congress, and their Repub counterparts, who don't want to do anything to detail their personal gravy trains.

It seems you are catching on. The trouble is is that they are the ones with the votes.

[finnbow]

Journalists hoping to cover a Republican rally featuring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Senate candidate J.D. Vance in Ohio will have to agree to give organizers access to any footage they take, and could face questions about what it will be used for.
That is among the controversial restrictions placed on journalists as a condition of receiving a press pass to cover Friday’s event, which is being organized by an arm of the pro-Trump youth group Turning Point USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...rictions-ohio/

It seems like these fascist gentlemen don’t believe in the freedom of the press.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Journalists hoping to cover a Republican rally featuring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Senate candidate J.D. Vance in Ohio will have to agree to give organizers access to any footage they take, and could face questions about what it will be used for.
That is among the controversial restrictions placed on journalists as a condition of receiving a press pass to cover Friday’s event, which is being organized by an arm of the pro-Trump youth group Turning Point USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...rictions-ohio/

It seems like these fascist gentlemen don’t believe in the freedom of the press.

They believe in freedom of the press. They also believe in protecting kids, and there will be plenty of kids in attendance. They also likely believe that the press is more interested in advancing narratives rather than simply reporting the news, and they'd probably be right.

The event is not open to the public - tickets must be purchased to attend - so its not required that that the press be given unfettered access.