FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

These are all good ideas that have exactly zero chance of passing in Congress.

Well, failure is absolutely guaranteed if there's no desire to even attempt it.

[Chicks]

Steve Forbes ran on a simplified tax plan, which of course, would have been hugely beneficial to his fellow 1%. He failed miserably.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Steve Forbes ran on a simplified tax plan, which of course, would have been hugely beneficial to his fellow 1%. He failed miserably.

It would have been beneficial to a very wide cross-section of the population if implemented correctly. Forbes candidacy didn't fail only because of his tax plan. It failed because he wasn't a great candidate.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, failure is absolutely guaranteed if there's no desire to even attempt it.

Indeed and as I said, there iszero desire to even attempt it. At most, the GOP may spew some flat tax nonsense while demonizing IRS agents. Speaking of which, the whole contrived scary story about the new Biden army murdering tax cheats has now been thoroughly debunked.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...nd-ammunition/

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Three things off the top of my head:

1) Accelerate efforts to retire/modernize legacy IT systems, particularly those that are now as old or older than some folks on this forum.

2) Depoliticize the tax code. One of the primary drivers of building efficient systems - whether human systems to technological systems - is to reduce complexity. The tax code changes with political tides and has become a method of driving social change and/or incentivizing (positive or negative incentives) personal and corporate behavior.

A tax billing and collection system should be about one thing: tax billing and collections. Decades of efforts to make it something it was never intended to be only hinder the IRS's mission, make creating efficiencies in the system extremely difficult, make life harder for IRS employees, and hinder efforts to modernize systems.

The other way to say this: I should be able to wake up on January 1 each year, and (based on my income) have a reasonably good idea of what my tax bill for that year will be. Most Americans (including business owners) wake up on January 1 and sometimes don't know what their tax bill for the prior year will look like. We've gotten so used to living like that, we fail to recognize just how absurd it really is.

3) Once one and two have been accomplished, the IRS gets much less expensive and more efficient to operate. The size and scope of the organization can be reduced. Simplification of the tax system could make projecting income and expenses for individuals and corporations MUCH easier, and as a bonus, reduces the frequency of tax avoidance schemes that require enforcement activity. It also seems likely that a predictable tax could have the effect of increasing economic activity (which increases tax revenue).

Whell, you have raised some very good talking points with your post.

Agree with your Point 1 regarding legacy systems and here is a recent personal experience. When we bought our house in Reno last year, we worked with a mortgage broker instead of a bank. This company was working with two major national banks, both pre-approved us until at the very last minute asked for IRS transcripts for my company, not just copies of our tax filings which (they already had) is very unusual. The mortgage company used a subcontractor to get the transcripts and they got a response "File Not Found". I only recall this happening to me from my Fortran programming days and I am dating myself, "The File Not Found" error code. They never did get the transcripts, mortgage company chose to self fund and close on our loan and then sell the loan later after we got the documents from IRS. The transcripts came a month after we closed! BTW, for personal returns, one can register and download within a matter of minutes.

Point 2 is where the real problem lies. Simplify tax code? Alternate minimum tax? Corporations and the wealthy have gamed the IRS, they will throw every lobbyist at Congress who of course will cower in fear and complicate this even further to keep their paymasters happy and fat. It will take a constitutional amendment to change it, if ever.

As a cynic, I will say that we will never get to Point 3. Every member of Congress is only concerned about getting reelected and retaining power. Politicians like Boehner and Kinzinger are a rare breed.

[finnbow]

Alex Jones is not the only entrepreneur working the Lie Economy angle. Fox News Channel and its bastard offspring Newsmax and OAN excel at pushing half-truths that stimulate viewer appetite for more outlandish morsels. Tucker Carlson would have you believe that Jan. 6 was a false flag operation. Sean Hannity pushed a baseless conspiracy theory about the murder of Seth Rich. The channel hyped ivermectin as a Covid treatment and drenched its audience in bogus coverage about the stolen election. Again, not everything aired on these channels can be dismissed as lies any more than the notion that Jones broadcasts lies only. But the steady stream of spurious segments they do air seems designed to hook accepting viewers whose attention can then be sold to advertisers.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...onomy-00050731

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Point 2 is where the real problem lies. Simplify tax code? Alternate minimum tax? Corporations and the wealthy have gamed the IRS, they will throw every lobbyist at Congress who of course will cower in fear and complicate this even further to keep their paymasters happy and fat. It will take a constitutional amendment to change it, if ever.

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.

IRS audits are down supposedly due to a lack of staffing. Its pretty likely that robust audits will return as the IRS staffs up over the next 10 years. Here's the kicker, though: the IRS has historically not investigated the exact types of folks that progressives would want/hope:

Congress requires even more of the 19 million Americans who apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a payment from the government of as much as $4,008 for a low-income working family. Some of them are required to produce marriage licenses, school report cards to prove the existence of a child in the home and other evidence.

But a much smaller group of Americans -- almost all of them among the wealthiest 5 percent -- are subjected to less rigorous standards. Among them are people who own their own businesses, collect rents from tenants and reap gains on their stocks and other investments, including partnerships.

Americans have shown that they can unite and bring about change. I tend to believe that's why folks have become more divided in their politics: division enables the status quo, and the media and our politicians have done their very best to help keep people divided. In this case, the status quo with the IRS is so out of whack that its no longer recognizable from its original mission.

It would be hard work, it would be an effort that would require unity and the making of "strange bedfellows". It would receive much pushback from the elected class. However, I think it's doable if there's enough popular support.

The tax rates (nominal rate, effective rate, whatever) are the source of division and a significant source of division on this topic. It doesn't need to be, but it's exactly the first place that enemies of a simplified tax system go because they know it will whip up the division.

Based on my math, a tax based on a percentage of income - where all income is taxed at the same rate no matter the source - is predictable, easy to understand, and easier to plan form, and doesn't create a disincentive to earn one type of income over another. I get that not all folks would agree on this, but it's not hard to see that the higher the cost of an activity, the less of it you get. Hell, the recent rise and recent modest retreat of gasoline prices should be instructive in this regard. Bottom line - there ought to be a way to get an agreement - even a temporary agreement - on what a tax rate (or even simply understood tax rates) on income could be.

Originally Posted by Rajoo

As a cynic, I will say that we will never get to Point 3. Every member of Congress is only concerned about getting reelected and retaining power. Politicians like Boehner and Kinzinger are a rare breed.

I get it. It would be a heavy lift and I understand the cynicism about the possibility of a simplified system becoming reality.

I'd suggest that, at least historically, progressives have been the biggest enemy of a simpler tax system because of the belief that a flat tax would not be progressive. I think there's a possibility that a simplified tax system COULD include some progressivity. Obviously, I can only speak for myself here, but if it meant getting an agreement on a simplified tax system, I'd be all for some stratification in rates, rather than one single rate.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Alex Jones is not the only entrepreneur working the Lie Economy angle. Fox News Channel and its bastard offspring Newsmax and OAN excel at pushing half-truths that stimulate viewer appetite for more outlandish morsels. Tucker Carlson would have you believe that Jan. 6 was a false flag operation. Sean Hannity pushed a baseless conspiracy theory about the murder of Seth Rich. The channel hyped ivermectin as a Covid treatment and drenched its audience in bogus coverage about the stolen election. Again, not everything aired on these channels can be dismissed as lies any more than the notion that Jones broadcasts lies only. But the steady stream of spurious segments they do air seems designed to hook accepting viewers whose attention can then be sold to advertisers.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...onomy-00050731

And if there's anyone who's going to focus on division, it's gonna be you, Finn.

Of course, you like to paint "folks like me" with a broad brush, but I've never watched Newsmax or Alex Jones, and I rarely watch Fox News. I wonder if that comes as any surprise to you, or if it even matters.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

And if there's anyone who's going to focus on division, it's gonna be you, Finn.

Of course, you like to paint "folks like me" with a broad brush, but I've never watched Newsmax or Alex Jones, and I rarely watch Fox News. I wonder if that comes as any surprise to you, or if it even matters.

You are the one who started this thread in order to label inconvenient truths about Trump as lies and Trump's childish lies as truth. Maybe you are finally coming around to realizing you were fed a line of shit. If so, congratulations and all I can say is "you're welcome."

[Rajoo]

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.

IRS audits are down supposedly due to a lack of staffing. Its pretty likely that robust audits will return as the IRS staffs up over the next 10 years. Here's the kicker, though: the IRS has historically not investigated the exact types of folks that progressives would want/hope:

Congress requires even more of the 19 million Americans who apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a payment from the government of as much as $4,008 for a low-income working family. Some of them are required to produce marriage licenses, school report cards to prove the existence of a child in the home and other evidence.

But a much smaller group of Americans -- almost all of them among the wealthiest 5 percent -- are subjected to less rigorous standards. Among them are people who own their own businesses, collect rents from tenants and reap gains on their stocks and other investments, including partnerships.

Americans have shown that they can unite and bring about change. I tend to believe that's why folks have become more divided in their politics: division enables the status quo, and the media and our politicians have done their very best to help keep people divided. In this case, the status quo with the IRS is so out of whack that its no longer recognizable from its original mission.

It would be hard work, it would be an effort that would require unity and the making of "strange bedfellows". It would receive much pushback from the elected class. However, I think it's doable if there's enough popular support.

The tax rates (nominal rate, effective rate, whatever) are the source of division and a significant source of division on this topic. It doesn't need to be, but it's exactly the first place that enemies of a simplified tax system go because they know it will whip up the division.

Based on my math, a tax based on a percentage of income - where all income is taxed at the same rate no matter the source - is predictable, easy to understand, and easier to plan form, and doesn't create a disincentive to earn one type of income over another. I get that not all folks would agree on this, but it's not hard to see that the higher the cost of an activity, the less of it you get. Hell, the recent rise and recent modest retreat of gasoline prices should be instructive in this regard. Bottom line - there ought to be a way to get an agreement - even a temporary agreement - on what a tax rate (or even simply understood tax rates) on income could be.



I get it. It would be a heavy lift and I understand the cynicism about the possibility of a simplified system becoming reality.

I'd suggest that, at least historically, progressives have been the biggest enemy of a simpler tax system because of the belief that a flat tax would not be progressive. I think there's a possibility that a simplified tax system COULD include some progressivity. Obviously, I can only speak for myself here, but if it meant getting an agreement on a simplified tax system, I'd be all for some stratification in rates, rather than one single rate.

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.