Last Monday night I was out with a friend, drinking beer. As often happens when drinking, I figured out a solution to one of the problems of the day, and it was, of course, brilliant. Even in more sober moments, it still sounds like a good idea.
People seem to be willing to pay what I think are very high taxes without a peep of protest. I know exactly how much I am paying, because I do contract work and have to send a check for every dime of taxes. I get a nice check with no deductions taken from it, and every quarter I get to figure out how much to send Uncle Sugar.
I think it hits you much harder when you actually see it spelled out for you. My first brilliant idea was to have everybody paying quarterly taxes and have no deductions taken from their paychecks. The howls of pain would shake things up quite nicely, especially when they realize that their gross salaries would be 7.6% higher if their employers weren’t paying “their half” of the social security tax. That half is just missing wages, pure and simple.
Of course, that would never work for at least two reasons. The first is that people are so used to having the automatic deductions that they soon learn to not pay attention to any of them, and if they were done away with a majority of the people in this country would find themselves at odds with the IRS when they failed to pay the quarterly estimated taxes. A second reason this won’t happen is that our betters in government are smart enough to know that bringing to harsh reality exactly how much people pay in taxes (I pay 43% including SSI , not including the 7% I pay to the state, and I will gross about $41K this year) would reduce their ability to continue to steal vast amounts of our money to build bridges to nowhere and finance fur-bearing trout farms or whatever pet project they need to coddle their constituents.
So, given that the previous idea would never fly, the alternative is for the employers to send out quarterly statements to its employees outlining exactly how much money they would have made without any taxes, including the employers contribution to social security, and how much they have paid in taxes so far. Sure, many people would just throw it away without reading it, but enough trouble-makers would read it and start to raise a big stink. And from my standpoint, that can only be a good thing.
I am not against all taxes. The Feds need money to defend this country and to assist the truly needy. All levels of government need money to build and maintain roads and provide many other essential services. But this nanny-state that wipes everyone’s nose for them needs a lot of money to feed it, and they are taking that money from almost all of us. Remember, the founders were complaining about taxes on the order of %10 as being outrageous. I wonder what they would think now?
How about just declaring a tax? Print the money as needed, the Fed does already. Remember, the income tax only pays for the costs to administrate it, while corporate tax pays for the military. Everything else is just debt, or something roughly along those lines.
And where did this notion about the truly needy come from? The private sector can’t do it so we need government to make more poverty by financing it?
I’m with you that the system is a fool’s errand, but shouldn’t we get down to real business?
This idea and its permutations aren’t anything Dick Armey didn’t propose some years back, unfortunately…
Flat tax, paid upon spending the money. No withholding. No tax returns.
Cranky-d,
Reagan thought that was a good idea – in 1966.
It’s still one of the better ideas around. A demand for a quarterly accounting of taxes paid would make an excellent platform plank.
http://www.fairtax.org
Yes, the FairTax plan has always looked attractive to me.
Who’d have thunk it? Withholding was implemented by Milton Friedman during WWII – to his eternal regret. (Wife never forgave him.)
I forgot to put in the disclaimer that this is most likely not a new idea. Either way, I think it’s worth bringing up from time to time.
As to what constitutes the truly needy, that’s a matter of opinion. If you are a true rugged individualist and demand that everyone else hew to that code, whether they are capable or not, then no one is truly needy. However, there are some people who are sufficiently handicapped either physically, mentally, or psychologically that they simply cannot take care of themselves, and some of them lack the family that used to fulfill the role of caretaker. I believe most of the people who are on the dole probably could work if they wanted to, but not every one of them can. My heart goes out to the latter, not the former.
Another vote for the flat tax. It might be interesting to see how much the “needy” (which are on every gov’t program available, yet still have gold plated Escalades from drug money) can provide in tax revenues when they are paying taxes on their big screen tv’s, rims, gold “teef” and such at the register.
Have you taken into account the end of professional sports? Prisons would be populated by professional athletes that didn’t pay their taxes.
Then again, they already get away with murder, rape, etc. Not even the IRS is above the NBL, NFL,…
The FairTax proposal is a sales tax — no way not pay it, unless you bought everything on the black market.
How about we show Americans how things could be different if their government really worked for them? Besides the USA, I live part-time in two countries with high tax rates and I hear few complaints from most people because they DEMAND a high level of services for their hard-earned money: great public transportation, bike paths, parks, health care, free higher education, and a lot of other things that are better done collectively. And they have no sales tax which is highly regressive for the most part. All of the data point towards a new Guilded Age in America. Why would we want to return to this era when most people feel that out best times came after we did away with these huge personal fortunes and tried to distribute the national income a bit more evenly? Or you can keep blaming all of problems on people with “gold teef.” (I hope this commenter doesn’t mirror a consensus view at PW)
I think it is curious that people who complain about the government wasting their money also support the war effort. I can’t imagine a more shameful waste of US funds.
People I know say withholding, with a refund in the spring, is a compulsory savings program. Go figure.
Is there any reason, ronaldo, why government doesn’t just provide everything free?
Well, we knew you weren’t very imaginative. You couldn’t think of the Department of Education?
Myself, I DEMAND a high level of war on Islamic fundamentalism for my hard-earned money. Bike paths? We can get on that maybe later … I mean, we should keep it as an agenda item and all, but maybe we’ll have to keep seeing how it fits with respect to priorities.
“…they DEMAND a high level of services for their hard-earned money: great public transportation, bike paths…”
Which they have to have because they can’t afford cars or fuel because they are getting taxed out the fucking ass.
ronaldo – so, because people DEMAND other people’s money be spent on what THEY want, that makes it “better done collectively.” Mmm-hmmm. East any good books lately?
Do the math and read the history, and you find that the private sector just about always does it better, if only because the size of the pie grows so much faster. Unfortunately, this is the most counterintuitive idea in the history of mankind, so you evidently have to prove it not only every generation, but every year, sometimes twice. And some people still don’t listen.
On the other hand, I’m not sure how ronaldo’s position is against people KNOWING what their taxes are, explicitly, unless ronaldo is afraid that people would moderate their DEMANDS and then his personal preferences would no longer be as highly funded.
Solipsism masquerading as compassion and public service, ain’t it grand.
Oh, and to be worthy of debate, please don’t use euphemisms, like “did away with those huge personal fortunes,” instead say “stole a whole fucking lot of money and did what WE want with it, ka-ching!”
TW: dared produces (only the bravest of souls)
Brian Johnson: Dear Mr. Vernon, we accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong. But we think you’re crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us… In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain…
Andrew Clark: …and an athlete…
Allison Reynolds: …and a basket case…
Claire Standish: …a princess…
John Bender: …and a criminal…
Brian Johnson: Does that answer your question?… Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.
oh. go by. move along. nothing to see here.
So, happy, how’s the bunnies and turtles (topic be damned!)? :)
the turtles are taking their bath and one of the bunnies is upstairs in the bunny castle eating and the other one is in the bunny dungeon sleeping
My life is kinda stupid, written out like that
I want a bunny dungeon. I’ll bet Karl Rove has one, and I want one, too.
CW: Persian terest… I think McGehee was right, Witheld has taken over the turing machine
I was a flat tax/negative income tax supporter for years but eventually the national sales tax folks beat me down with what are quite frankly superior arguments. The Fair Tax sounds pretty cool, as does the similar arrangement supported by Charles Murray.
What finally pushed me over the edge was when I realized that with ANY kind of income tax, no matter how flat, the government will always have an incentive to track how much we earn for a living, how we earn it, and how we spend it. Since the government can never go out of business, it never has any type of incentive to cut it’s losses; it pays for them to spend 99¢ to recover a dollar from wayward taxpayers.
Now before the days of cheap computing, none of this really mattered. The government was constrained by practical reality from tracking our every move. Unfortunately for us, this is no longer so. The technology to track virtually every economic transaction we make (and in doing so track our movements, etc.) is available for some time and is relatively cheap. As long as we have an income tax, true Orwellian Big Brother is just a matter of time, and the only way we can avoid it is to remove the taxes on business and income that provide government the incentive to walk that road in the first place. By converting from taxes on business and income to taxes on retail sales, we divert the government’s attention from the behavior of each and every one of us onto a retailers. Sorry retailers, but the country is better off having the government surveiling a couple of million of you than 300+ million citizens.
yours/
peter.
Ronaldo, good luck with your “redistribution” of the rather large personal fortunes of drug dealers. Also, my apologies if my being irked by someone dropping two thousand dollars on unnecessary retainers made out of precious metals then turning around and using food stamps offends you. :)
It doesn’t make it true just because people have been saying that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector (Namely, the entire misguided economics faculty where I studied). It isn’t true. Try finding a private company that would administer social security for the going rate of something like 3% or so. Big, publicly owned corporations have a lot more graft and inefficiency than most government agencies (with the possible exception of defense). The dot com crash? Tyco? Enron?
I find it hard to believe that people would criticize public education to the point of trying to do away with it. Universal public education is what made this country great and without it we will lose our greatness. Free higher education is one of the main reasons Ireland went from poverty to one of the strongest economies in Europe. I lucked out in that I attended a great state university at a very low price and without going into debt, even though I had very little means at that time. I wouldn’t want to try to do that again today.
I don’t understand this knee-jerk revulsion to a community working collectively. It seems like the flip side is some sort of Road Warrior vision of civilization. I have never wanted to live in some strip mall nightmare so I choose communities with strong local governments that exert pressure on businesses to conform to the local standards. Talk to anyone in the building trades in Spain and they will tell you that historic preservation is a huge pain in the ass, but I think most people agree that it is a good thing to maintain their cultural heritage.
“…they DEMAND a high level of services for their hard-earned money: great public transportation, bike paths…â€Â
Which they have to have because they can’t afford cars or fuel because they are getting taxed out the fucking ass.
You don’t consider it a tax when gas goes up to $3.75 a gallon? You don’t consider it a tax when you have to spend $35 on a cab to the airport when in any major European city there is mass transit available for $1 or less? It’s not a tax when your kid has to pay $25,000 a year to attend a state university? I won’t even mention health care.
Am I wrong in judging a society by how it treats all of its citizens? If you read your history you will see that America wasn’t such a great place back in the last Gilded Age yet many of you seem to be in a hurry to return.
tax |taks|
noun
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
No, you dunderhead, I don’t view every. Conceivable. Life. Expense. a tax.
The money I gave Home Depot for my air conditioner so as to cool my house (a not unreasonable thing, that, and something everyone should enjoy)? Not a tax. The health insurance that I can choose to receive or not to receive from my employer? NOT A TAX.
You, sir, are a moron.
Also, I categorically deny that “universal” pubic education and higher ed. are what has made the US great, as neither had anything to do with the founding of this great nation nor its philosophical roots.
We’re great because, by and large, our people are committed to the notion that greatness is something that can be achieved, and, in large part, ought to as well.
Stop trying to drag the rest of us down, you well-trod Socialist.
“I have never wanted to live in some strip mall nightmare so I choose communities with strong local governments that exert pressure on businesses to conform to the local standards.”
HERETIC!
You’re right, B.H.M.: it almost sounded like he suggested that some communities are created more equal than others. Almost.
Death to Snowball!
Captcha words: vealed Galway. Yup, that’s some fine young flutin’, I tell you whut.
A question for those who favor the European welfare state: What does shari’a law say about historic preservation? Free higher education outside the madrassa?
OK, that’s two questions. Sue me.
. Universal public education is what made this country great and without it we will lose our greatness. Free higher education is one of the main reasons Ireland went from poverty to one of the strongest economies in Europe
Except, of course, where it is a total failure. Detroit graduation rates are around 27%- and my taxes keep going up. I’ll tell ya what’s funny, and not in a ha-ha way – I JUST received my property taxes (you know, one more tax in addition to state, local, federal, and sales) and I personally owe $500 bucks toward Detroit’s education “debt.” That’s not new education stuff. That’s just it’s DEBT. Debt, to graduate 30% of the population. As I said before, they oppress themselves.
What was that funny thing you said about companies failing, and government being more efficient? That was a good one.
I have never wanted to live in some strip mall nightmare
Yes, we all know that the “Soviet Worker Apartment Block”, “British Housing Estate” and “U.S. Public Housing Project” schools of architecture and urban design are way more spiritually uplifting.
“Comment by ronaldo on 7/29 @ 8:32 pm #”
So, when was the last time YOU built a bike path?
I DEMAND that you build me a bike path across your property.
So, Cranky-d walks into a bar…
He orders a beer but the bartender calls the bouncer over and bounces Cranky out the door.
Bartender says, don’t mess with taxes.
/got nuthin
Sure it would be a good thing for taxpayers to be more acutely aware of how much tax they’re paying, but none of these proposals will ever come to pass. You noted why the government would never abolish withholdings. And legitimate paychecks already carry a line of gross (pre-tax) income, followed by an itemized list of withholdings, as well as year-to-date withholdings. I think most employees barely look at this, if at all, probably largely because it’s too painful. While I agree that it would be a good thing for this information to be more apparent, such as in a quarterly tax statement describing clearly and simply the percentage of your income that goes to government, why would employers have any non-compulsory interest in reminding their employees how much of their wages aren’t truly their own?
So ronaldo, since you didn’t answer me about why government just doesn’t make everything free (except for your tacit belief folks should just vote for what’s taxed and what’s not, which kinda defeats the purpose of having a designed government) how about if you tell me where government gets the authority to come in and take over private sector concerns selectively. Is that a mob thing too?
I’m just trying to get a sense of where your claims are based. You’ll need some authority and I sure as hell will want some visibility before government really does just take up all of my life’s expenses and services, exactly and precisely like some bif Socialist Nanny. Or worse.
By the way, your assertion about government schooling is flat wrong. They cost double what private schooling does and I’d add that they turn out far better product. But once again, my real interest lies in your view of authority — where did this constitutional system develop the sense that government could just practically abolish an entire industry. Just to screw it up.
If we’re trading assertions, I’d say there’s not a damn thing government can do the private sector can’t do better. I’d add that government lacks that right, anyway. You couldn’t prove me wrong on either point except that variable pragmatism argument of yours, which always makes folks feel comfortable with a government they instinctively know they should fear, not put in charge of their bread and eggs. Then I’d twice ask you what authority gave you the right to do the things you’re promoting, as blindly as you’re promoting them.
If you don’t mind.
I don’t understand this knee-jerk revulsion to a community working collectively
I’ll tell you why. Because there are large segments of the population that are lazy.The people across the street from me don’t cut or water their lawn, and can’t even bother to take in their trash can. For the last TWO weeks, it sat in the street.
How government treats its dependent, subject society has everything to do with judging it. Or should, that kinda being the point.
But then you are wrong, obviously, by (1) assuming your intent is its automatic result. (2) For giving it that right to experiment when it hasn’t that right.
And (3) for not realizing that this is the sort of experiment you can’t ever undo. Because if you’d (4) read your history, you’d realize before making such idiotic assertions that about collectives, it’s universally dark.
Taxation is theft. There’s no way around this basic, obvious fact.
Any government that operates on the basis of taxation is a conspiratorial organization dedicated to the perpetual commission of crime. It’s no wonder that an organization that so readily commits theft on a massive scale every day would have no qualms about committing every other kind of crime imaginable.
I don’t understand this knee-jerk revulsion to a community working collectively.
Who decides what the “collective” goal should be? What if some members of that community don’t agree that their hard-earned money should go towards “self-esteem enhancement seminars for dogs”? Or trying to enforce transgender diversity rules? Or having the “domicile-challenged” living, sleeping – and shitting – in the public parks?
Who gets to decide then? Will the community take their money anyway? At the barrel of a gun?
Capitalism may be the unequal distribution of wealth, but Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.
“Taxation is theft. There’s no way around this basic, obvious fact.”
And using that money to get other people to vote for you is buying votes. Another basic, obvious fact.
Way back when, when I was working as a paralegal, my boss asked me to research the Flat Tax proposal.
I presented my report and he handed it back, unread. It was a halfpage, double spaced. He inidcated that I must not have been very thorough.
After explaining, that, yes, it was a simple a proposal as indicated by the brevity of the report, he read it. And almost choked.
The original proposal had one poison pill provision. My boss wouldn’t support it and many people felt the same (and my boss went on counsel many others in this vein).
The Flat Tax exempted revenue produced overseas. A boon, no doubt, to corporations with overseas holdings, but also an inducement to move operations and earnings offshore. That was 15 years ago and listen to people scream about outsourcing caused by normal market pressures now.
Doug Stewart:
You, sir, are a genius. Why? Because you can look up words in the dictionary. Like many geniuses you have a problem distinguishing between literal and figurative declarations. I was obviously speaking figuratively when I said that such things as a gas price hike is a tax. The results are the same for consumers, however. When governments tax gas they can use the proceeds for the benefit of the community (public transportation, for example), or we can just add to Exxon’s $36.2 billion yearly profits. Also, your personal insults make you come across like an internet tough guy who wouldn’t look another dude in the eye walking down the street. Let the strength of your arguments be the insult.
Taxation is theft. There’s no way around this basic, obvious fact.
Good luck out there without roads, electricity, national defense, sewage treatment, etc. Maybe you can move into the Unibomber’s old place.
From what I have seen of European social democracies they look like a better choice for a society than the direction America has been heading, which looks more like Brazil or some other Latin American shit-hole. All of them could use a healthy dose of socialism from what I have seen first hand. I didn’t live through America’s Gilded Age but I heard it was like present-day Mexico. No thanks.
Who gets to decide then? Will the community take their money anyway? At the barrel of a gun?
The people decide; it’s called democracy. Progressive communities in America already work this way. I live in one. It’s called Seattle and it’s actually pretty nice the way we decide how things get done and not just leave it to the whim of corporations. Portland is even better (although too small for me). Anti-sprawl campaigns have made Portland a much better place to live although businesses complained at first. Or you can just live with endless strip malls.
The biggest problem I have with a flat tax is your still have the problem of trying to determine income, which means you are still going to be plagued with defining expenses and deductions and reams of regulations and loopholes. All controlled by a massive, over-powered IRS.
Corporations have been forcing people to buy houses in the suburbs and shop at strip malls? This is outrageous! How long has this been going on?
The people decide; it’s called democracy. Progressive communities in America already work this way. I live in one. It’s called Seattle and it’s actually pretty nice the way we decide how things get done and not just leave it to the whim of corporations.
Which gets real fun in places with a 30% high school graduation rate. Democracy is limited by the intellect.
But I’m sure things are real nice in Seattle.
Well, since ronaldo refuses to cite the constitutional authority for Socialism, and falls back on variable standards like his personal view of, say, Seattle — such as it exists in 2007 — maybe he’ll address the fact this isn’t a pure democracy we live in. It, at least in principle, still has an architecture that puts it on a somewhat different level than a mob.
And about eeevil corporations, ronaldo, are you really that suspect of law that you’d defeat it for the private sector and install it instead where it can’t easily be reformed? How do you feel about competition and the pressure of civil responsibility on capitalism? Gaging from your dim views on choice and responsibility, I’m not optimistic.
All I see from the American Socialist is variable standards: It works like a charm until it doesn’t. What an ignorant, self-centered way to see things.
Give you one guess which I’d prefer; the whim of a corporation versus the whim of drop outs. Or (shudder) progressives.
I’m with you, Carin: I tend to think competition and law create order. The Socialists just want to not have to think about it. And with a monolithic power, they surely won’t have to, so I give them that consistency.
ronaldo [sic]:
I debate all comers, regardless of their relation to me. If I were to meet and debate you In Real Life/Meatspace, I’ve little doubt that “dunderhead” would be the worst of which might pass my lips.
You weren’t speaking figuratively — don’t try to run that post hoc game here, son. You clearly asked whether other commenters considered rising gas prices, the cost of a cab, etc. as “taxes”. I pointed out that taxes are levied by the government, not oil companies, private taxi services, etc.
The result of taxation is manifestly different from costs incurred by private companies, your assertions notwithstanding. Your idealized ride on the ol’ Muni bus is not “$1”, it is “$1” + the cost of the government subsidies used to pay for buses, bus drivers, maintenance of the buses, maintenance of the bus stops, etc. You’re not saving the average citizen a dime — in fact, you’re using more money through the increased bureaucracy needed to collect and divert tax revenues. You’re subsidizing your $1 ride off my hard-earned paycheck, to which I reply: stay in Seattle. Have fun paying for the ne’er-do-wells fares that your higher local tax revenues contribute to. I, meanwhile, will fight your redistributionist nonsense wherever I see it posted.
Moron.
Can we have a revolution yet? I’m really getting tired of being trampled.
And that Tree of Liberty looks positively parched…
ronaldo, you say:
When governments tax gas they can use the proceeds for the benefit of the community (public transportation, for example), or we can just add to Exxon’s $36.2 billion yearly profits
You should understand that you are under no obligation to add to Exxon’s profits, but if you fail to pay your taxes there are legal repercussions. Do you think it is a bad thing that Exxon has such high yearly profits?
The people decide; it’s called democracy. Progressive communities in America already work this way. I live in one. It’s called Seattle and it’s actually pretty nice the way we decide how things get done and not just leave it to the whim of corporations.
If the people decided that they had had enough of all the gays, or some other group and decided to force them to be cast out of the city, would you still then be singing the praises of your progressive paradise, or is it only when the democracy functions the way you think it should that it is a good idea?
From what I have seen of European social democracies they look like a better choice for a society than the direction America has been heading, which looks more like Brazil or some other Latin American shit-hole.
And yet you have yet to the places you consider to be a “better” choice. Why is that? Also, do you think that these so called better societies exist in a vacuum? Lastly, can you point me to the last truly innovative thing one of these societies has done?
Oh, and ronaldo, about attitudes you don’t cotton to, I admit that having an unprecedented and simply brilliant system of divided powers, checks and balances, personal freedom, prosperity, and self-actualization ruined by design by fools does tend to get just a little under my skin. All the more when that ruin is historically evident, and even more so when you, like all the Socialists I’ve ever run into, simply refuse to account for any one of the primary issues and questions put to you.
Wrecking somebody’s life over their valid objections while citing a bogus history will do that to people. There’s nothing compassionate about Socialism that isn’t overwhelmed by the sheer arrogant ignorance of the thing.
How would you have your victims react, ronaldo? You want to be in charge, right?
Corporations have been forcing people to buy houses in the suburbs and shop at strip malls? This is outrageous! How long has this been going on?
Corporations didn’t do that. Ronaldo’s blessed, altruistic, all-powerful, all-knowing Government did. Government created a socialized road-building system, and then decided to make cities that way.
Oh, and still waiting for you to cite your Socialist authority, ronaldo. Since you cannot, you’ll avoid. But you’ll avoid while working to bring it about anyway. Nice circular bit of social compassion, that.
Which is yet another reason that about this topic you probably don’t want to meet me in “meatspace”. You’d surely do no better dealing with the fundamental issue of tyranny there than you have here.
“But I’m sure things are real nice in Seattle.”
The Washington State legislature just delayed imposition of standard testing as a prerequisite for high school graduation. Fifty per cent of the high school sophomores who took the preliminary test last year failed. Not too far from Detroit’s level. Lots of little, dumb, Ronaldo’s who think that paying $1 for a bus ride has something to do with the cost of the ride.
I don’t know, JHoward. If Portland ain’t big enough for him he must be a pretty big ole boy.
Not too far from Detroit’s level. Lots of little, dumb, Ronaldo’s who think that paying $1 for a bus ride has something to do with the cost of the ride.
Well, that’s been the plan all along. Mis- and under-educate the youth, and they will vote for your progressive, $1 bus rides when they grow up.
Screw this quarterly crap…
I want the income tax to have to be paid once a year. Full amount, no governmental withholding. If you’re a responsible adult, and plan in advance, you’ll be putting your best estimate of your taxes into the bank and earning interest on it, rather than giving it as an interest-free loan to the dot-gov. If you’re stupid, you’ll be getting one heck of a tax bill with nothing to show for it come tax day.
But one little addendum: Election day is going to be the day after tax day.
So, with Seattle failing the great Socialist hope in the space of a dozen comments, and with ronaldo not having an ounce of authority to back up his Plan, and with the democracy here at pw having shouted it all down anyway, I’d say it’s rough collectivist sledding.
Not nearly rough enough, as it’ll turn out in the end, but it’s something.
But one little addendum: Election day is going to be the day after tax day.
Unfortunately, that will do nothing to influence all those who pay no taxes. The ranks of which, increase every year; 32% in 2005.
While looking for that, I came up with this little nugget:
A Socialist is someone who stands astride history with their eyes shut, their fingers in their ears, and screaming “IT DIDN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY” at the top of their lungs.
In a way, it would be nice to engage in a point-by-point disassembling of ronaldo’s fantasy world, but since it has already declared the entire economics faculty at its university to be delusional because they don’t bow to it’s infinite wisdom, what effect do you think mere facts will have? It’s already been exposed to the ideas, they just didn’t take.
It’s a damned telephone pole. Talking to it is a waste of time. The good news is it announced its immunity to logic and facts up front, which saves me (most) of the time.
TW: dis- modernized (oh yeah, baby)
Ronaldo also fails to mention the fact that Seattle’s growth management policies have constrained the supply of land enough to drive housing prices through the roof. Great if you’re landowner already, but not so good if you’re concerned (as I’m sure Ronaldo is) about affordable housing for the middle and lower classes.
On the bright side, the housing slump hasn’t hurt Seattle very bad at all. Because, when supply is effectively zero, *any* level of demand is enough.
What do you suppose the odds are that Ronaldo lives in, say, Ravenna or Laurelhurst, as opposed to, say, the more “exciting” parts of the CD, Renton, or Skyway? No Stalinist housing block for him, you can bet. Those will be for “the workers”, come the revolution. The philosopher-kings who manage society for the good of “the workers” will, of course, be entitled to a domicile that’s not quite so ticky-tacky. They’ll be thinking Important Thoughts, and thus can’t be distracted by drive-by shootings or garish strip malls. The workers, on the other hand, will simply be required to work.
Sounds like a dumb idea to make government stupider and more annoying.
“Print the money as needed, the Fed does already.”
The Fed doesn’t print money as needed for fiscal reasons. The law requires that it regulate the money supply as needed for their goals as required by the Federal Reserve Act: “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
I think you get the point though, oagen — when government runs a deficit (and a debt) that capital isn’t derived from taxes. The money supply is the money supply. Government not sending it through the private sector economy to liable the citizen and cost untold billions is surely possible…
“I think you get the point though, oagen  when government runs a deficit (and a debt) that capital isn’t derived from taxes.”
When we run a debt of course that isn’t derived from taxes. It is borrowed. Taxes later pay that back.
“Government not sending it through the private sector economy to liable the citizen and cost untold billions is surely possible…”
What ?
Kindly explain why the private sector is obliged to launder its tax receipts for it if the Fed just grants DC cash via the money supply anyway, oagen.
Politicians prefer the income tax to the mere printing of paper currency because taxation gives the State more control over who pays. Inflation punishes everyone, and its particular effects as to any specific type of transaction is somewhat uncontrollable.
But an income tax system that focuses on the individual, using a person as the taxable unit, allows politicians to decide who pays, and how much.
In turn, this power to ensure that “the right people” pay the tax (to use Al Gore’s infamous phrase) turns the citizenry into sycophants appealing to the almighty politicians for mercy and/or special favors.
“Kindly explain why the private sector is obliged to launder its tax receipts for it if the Fed just grants DC cash via the money supply anyway, oagen.”
I don’t get what you’re talking about .. launder tax receipts, grants cash, etc…. The Fed issues money to regulate the money supply and set interest rates, inflation and employment targets. It doesn’t print money which is used to pay for items in the federal budget. If the government needs to spend money it doesn’t have, it borrows it. It doesn’t just invent money with no promise of paying someone back.
Are you arguing that you think we should just print money to use for federal government debts? That’s what Weimar Germany did. Not a good idea. It doesn’t work. I can’t think of a single economic theory that says this is a good idea.
“Inflation punishes everyone, and its particular effects as to any specific type of transaction is somewhat uncontrollable.”
Unanticipated inflation punishes creditors and rewards debtors. Thats not the sort of thing that owners of capital like. It therefore makes credit hard to issue. It further also punishes those who do not have access to financial techniques which can shield one from inflation risk. Lastly, fast changing prices benefit those with the market power to effectuate price changes. If I am a business that can change my prices everyday (or more often) my averag real price over a given time period will have kept pace with inflation during that time period. If, on the other hand, my wages merely get a cost of living adjustment every six or so months, then my average real wages over that time will not have kept pace. Advantage to the price setter.
While you appear to contradict yourself, I’m sure you didn’t mean to — perhaps the confusing term is “print money” versus “money supply”. I see them as the same net result.
So the money supply is simply the debt the system is based on — there is no hard value, it’s all based on trust, hence the engineered results you mentioned. Aside from the notion there’s little good reason to have such units of value floating variably on a central private bank under government control, can you explain to me why a tax system that doesn’t pay much more than its own cost to implement (speaking of personal income tax, this thread’s topic) is necessary?
If developing a money supply has the repercussions on the indicators you’ve mentioned that it’s clearly designed to manipulate, and if it puts the citizen under personal liability, probably not an exactly original constitutional principle, why does that supply need to filter through the citizen in the first place? It seems it’s all entries in a ledger anyway.
If we completely abolished income tax and just fed that money supply into the market via federal expenditures, what would change except for the massive savings?
Well, if we can’t implement the elimination of withholding tax, I propose moving tax filing to the monday before November election day. Let’s see how many people run on a platform of raising taxes.
“can you explain to me why a tax system that doesn’t pay much more than its own cost to implement (speaking of personal income tax, this thread’s topic) is necessary?”
Thats where government gets the value it needs to spend. You seem to think they can just invent value. That sort of free lunch doesn’t exist.
“If we completely abolished income tax and just fed that money supply into the market via federal expenditures, what would change except for the massive savings?”
You mean if the government just invented money to pay its bills? Then we would have hyperinflation, which would wipe out people’s savings. See the experience of Weimar Germany. If it issued debt to pay its bills, then this debt would negate the savings. It also would need to be payed back by some sort of earnings by the government. If it just keeps on issuing debt, then that is the same thing as printing money, and we are back in the Weimar scenario again.
Instead of you asking questions, can you answer some? Do yuo want the government to just invent the money/debt it uses to pay its bills? You want the government not to collect any money, but to spend money it invents? Is that really what you’re arguing for?
The money supply is based on nothing except indicators, right? Then IF the tax system only pays for its own cost to implement, and IF corporate tax levels pay for national defense, as I’ve seen claimed, and where I began my questioning, then why is the private sector involved at all? IF the govt indeed kites the massive debt onto what amounts to thin fiscal air, why can’t it merely declare that amount in taxes and add it to the money supply annually, because that’s exactly what it’s already doing, just terribly inefficiently!
I’m aware of the Weimar principle and that’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m asking if the elastic money supply, minus the cost of the personal tax system and corporate tax receipts, can balance the books at least within the current bottom-line picture. Seems it’d be eminently more honest.
Put another way, if the cost of the tax system were eliminated, what would the shortfall be in terms of annual deficit? And if that shortage were compensated by, say, a flat tax, why is there any grounds for a personal income tax?
“IF the govt indeed kites the massive debt onto what amounts to thin fiscal air”
But it doesn’t. The government pays back its debts.
“Why can’t it merely declare that amount in taxes and add it to the money supply annually, because that’s exactly what it’s already doing”
That is not exactly what we are doing.
“Then IF the tax system only pays for its own cost to implement”
The tax system raises more money than it costs.
“I’m asking if the elastic money supply, minus the cost of the personal tax system and corporate tax receipts, can balance the books at least within the current bottom-line picture.”
Changing the money supply doesn’t “balance the books” because it doesn’t create value. If we double the money supply, we aren’t twice as rich, because things will cost twice as much.
Like i said before. You need to stop asking questions and start answering them.
Things will cost twice as much?
You mean like this? http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2007/07/all-in-one-case-shiller-hpi.html
Or maybe involving this? http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2007/07/one-wafer-thin-mint.html
Because your faith in the Fed and the greenback is encouraging when it’s clear to us both the latter is a construct, oagen, at least in terms of reliable, hard value.
So about those taxes, given that it’s all pretty much a shell game (your real-value-to-ledger-entries theory notwithstanding) is there no way to take the tremendous waste out of the income tax system? Or is “it takes in more than it costs” good enough and we can all just move on?
You want answers? I want to know how to reduce massive waste and personal liability from where it didn’t used to exist, if you don’t mind.
We, as citizens, over an extended period of time, began to accept small intrusions into our personal liberties for the greater good. The politicians have not forgotten that, and implemented programs that once in place, could not feasibly be repealed until the program itself literally collapsed from its own weight. As long as that collapse is able to be kept off in the future, there will be no wave or momentum to create the political will necessary to change these things, provided that someone else is paying for the benefit that another receives.
“Because your faith in the Fed and the greenback is encouraging when it’s clear to us both the latter is a construct, oagen, at least in terms of reliable, hard value.”
I know. That is why doubling the money supply makes things cost twice as much. Because reliable hard value we have didn’t change. What changed was the money supply we use to buy that value. Twice as much money means things cost twice as much. Their value hasn’t changed. Only their price. It is called inflation. And it is usually thought of as bad. Check out Mugabe.
Its not that I have faith in the greenback. Its that I know right now it is used roughly for the purposes i stated: “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” That is very different than what you want.
You seem to think we can just invent greenbacks. Thats not quite the way it works. That has consequences. Really bad ones. Just because we can invent money, doesn’t mean we should. Because the consequences are bad.
”So about those taxes, given that it’s all pretty much a shell game (your real-value-to-ledger-entries theory notwithstanding) is there no way to take the tremendous waste out of the income tax system? Or is “it takes in more than it costs†good enough and we can all just move on?”
Out of curiousity, have you ever compared the budget of the IRS to the receipts of the federal government? That would answer our question, no?
I’m really not sure you’re addressing me, oagen, as much as pep-talking yourself. Really, I don’t have an issue with your basic argument, but with money being an admitted construct (and with indices all over the place showing that historically just about anything dilutes the dollar, including to “double” again whatever loss it’s already suffered to date from any other arbitrary level) that dollar-value is, therefore, substantially variable, including when it comes to taxes. The dollar is not a hard unit of value as much as it’s an imaginary device constructed to facilitate economic motion.
With that in place, yes, checking the various cashflows would tell me if the govt could actually finance itself entirely out of this construct, and that flow without any impact on the relative value of money on any particular Tuesday.
If so, then why not?
In other words, were government to literally print that remainder, there would be no impact on the dollar’s value except by way of the savings-impact of having no more tax system waste, an actual boon.
But from there, the big questions still exist. I’m aware of the inflationary effect, oagen, as evidenced by a couple links, but you keep talking me into it.
So, about govt paying its bills, I don’t buy it: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/federal-debt-dollars.gif
About money being a reliable value, nobody buys that.
And about “inventing greenbacks” of course that’s what we do. That’s exactly how it works within yours and my limits of tolerance. But those two statements of yours are incongruous with your implied conclusion, which is that we’re not already suffering consequences and that they’re not really bad ones.
So, why an income tax? Why not just print the stuff because we are already (excepting that we shouldn’t really print more than we spend even if we have for decades — I get that.) And why the personal liability? How much does the tax system really cost? Where’s the justifications?
Any time somebody deflects basics like that I tend to think there’s something behind the curtain. With the abolition of real value, oagen, I know there is. Is that a problem? Questioning it, I mean?
“Really, I don’t have an issue with your basic argument, but with money being an admitted construct ”
It is a construct. A useful one. Bus since it is a construct it means you can’t get this:
“In other words, were government to literally print that remainder, there would be no impact on the dollar’s value except by way of the savings-impact of having no more tax system waste, an actual boon.”
Out of it. Because you dilute the value of dollars by printing more. So you get no value by printing new ones.
“And about “inventing greenbacks†of course that’s what we do”
But we only do it so much. And for some purposes. The ones I listed. You cant use it to replace the value stream that taxes are for the government. If you do that you get lots of trouble:
“Any time somebody deflects basics like that I tend to think there’s something behind the curtain. ”
I think there is not much behind your curtains. You seem to think we can just print money that the government wants to spend, instead of raise it. That’s ridiculous. tell me of “basics.”
“So, about govt paying its bills, I don’t buy it”
Purchasers of t-bills would disagree. But I do like how in a conversation where yuo want to just keep printing money, you send me to a chart with nominal values comparing 1929 to 2006. Awesome.
Really. You mean like this? “I’m aware of the Weimar principle and that’s not what I’m suggesting.” Or this? “dollar-value is, therefore, substantially variable.” Or how about this? http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2007/07/one-wafer-thin-mint.html
In other words, you don’t say? Printing money devalues it?!
As in, actually, your entire argument hinges on not deflating a dollar when all it’s ever done is deflated by way of increasing its supply.
Viola! An elastic money supply, one that’s “printed” on air.
But cannot ever be transferred to use without making it into a tax because, well, just because. And that’s not circular. Kindly go talk to yourself again.
“As in, actually, your entire argument hinges on not deflating a dollar when all it’s ever done is deflated by way of increasing its supply.”
If you follow the monetarists iike milton friedman increasing money supply by keeping up with production growth (actual value output) will keep price levels stable. MV=PY in their equation. Look that up.
My entire argument hinges on the fact that we can print different amounts of money for different reasons. Right now we do it for hte purposes I already stated. If we do it for yours, we will have lots of inflation. No matter how much you say you don’t want Weimar, that is exactly what you’re arguing for.
“But cannot ever be transferred to use without making it into a tax because, well, just because. And that’s not circular. Kindly go talk to yourself again.”
Just walk away with this. When you’re proposing an inflationary policy of the government printing money to pay its debts, don’t show us a constant dollar graph of national debt comparing nominal prices from 1929 to 2006. It really shows you have no clue. Do you understand why?
Still here, onan, talking to yourself? Still up on your back legs because you just know what you’re debating? Talk about obtuse; you couldn’t be sent a clue by certified mail.
What, actually, is the point of your mission here, oagen? Tell me, again, what it is I’m proposing. You tell me about inflationary policy.
By contrasting 1929 to 2006. By contrasting pre-gold standard fiscal policy to today’s.
Hello?
Every once in a while somebody rolls in with all the enlightenment God gave humanity and proceeds to debate themself. Anybody home in there?
Just walk away with this: That you can’t clam up long enough to actually listen.
“Tell me, again, what it is I’m proposing. ”
You want to print money when the government wants to spend, rather than having to raise it via taxes. Thats inflationary. The rest is internet bravado. And tiresome. I’ve tried to explain things to you with textbook concepts. I even pointed to milton friedman. But thats not enough. Instead I get your blabber.
Did you ever end up looking for constant dollar or percent-of-gdp figures for the national debt?
“You tell me about inflationary policy. By contrasting 1929 to 2006. By contrasting pre-gold standard fiscal policy to today’s.
What do you want to know about it? The big change post-gold standard fiscal policy, as can be shown by any graph on constant dollar debt, is the ramp up in debt after 1980.
But you tell me about fiscal policy. Seriously. Tell me. Stop asking questions and start saying something.
Tell you about fiscal policy? Why exactly, oagen; you’re quite impervious.
You see a rube to be educated about the inflationary effects of a variable money supply, regardless how many times you’re confronted with the plain fact that it’s precisely because we’re deep into a fiat-money, inflationary fiscal culture that it’s an interesting question, how we elect to involve the private citizen in filtering substantial amounts of tax proceeds when it’s neither necessary, expedient, economical, balanced, or probably entirely constitutional.
Inflation? Give me a break. Sacred, unimpeachable Fed money supply? Get real. And I need to answer to your inability to thoroughly define that system? Instead I should accept the blanket statement that because dicking around with the supply of cash is a protected strategy it just means that how we put at least a portion of that variability into circulation is too?
If there’s a valid reason not to, I’m all ears. If it’s because, gosh, making money out of thin air just naturally requires personal taxation to, in essence, launder it, I’m not and you’re not listening. You’ve shoved your point of view so far up your ass it’s irrelevant right to the point trying to discuss it with you after any amount of correction. Because you know what I’m saying.
Instead, to your myopic hammer, it’s all goldbuggering nails, isn’t it, no matter how many times you’re corrected.
Talk to yourself some more about the veritable and most delicate sanctity and balance of the tax system, the tax system that’s provided perfect cover by faultless government debt-spending and Fed accounting. Again. You idiot.
http://www.cats.org/www/index_main.php?id=29
In a way that few understand.
“You see a rube to be educated about the inflationary effects of a variable money supply, regardless how many times you’re confronted with the plain fact that it’s precisely because we’re deep into a fiat-money, inflationary fiscal culture that it’s an interesting question, how we elect to involve the private citizen in filtering substantial amounts of tax proceeds when it’s neither necessary, expedient, economical, balanced, or probably entirely constitutional.”
Can you use some more periods? This is gibberish. Fiat money can be regulated to be contractionary or inflationary. You seem to think we can just print money to raise government revenue. That is inflationary. In a real bad way.
I have no idea why you keep on going about “filtering” and mixing monetary and fiscal policies.
“Inflation? Give me a break. Sacred, unimpeachable Fed money supply? Get real. And I need to answer to your inability to thoroughly define that system? ”
My system is the Federal Reserve Act. You want money supply to be regulated for a different purpose. That’s what I’m asking for.
“If it’s because, gosh, making money out of thin air just naturally requires personal taxation to, in essence, launder it, I’m not and you’re not listening.”
The fiscal system (taxing and spending) is different than the monetary system (regulating the money supply). There is no laundering going on. In order for the government to spend real value it has to get real value from somewhere.
“You’ve shoved your point of view so far up your ass it’s irrelevant right to the point trying to discuss it with you after any amount of correction.”
Its not just my point of view. It is the system we have. Read some macro economics textbooks. I enjoyed Mankiw, who went on to become dubya’s economic advisor.
“Talk to yourself some more about the veritable and most delicate sanctity and balance of the tax system, the tax system that’s provided perfect cover by faultless government debt-spending and Fed accounting. Again. You idiot.”
Actually the tax system hasn’t been a perfect cover for debt spending, as we still have outstanding debt. It will be a terrible day when we decide to default or inflate our way out of it, however. So we better hope the tax system does cover it.
“The Central Bank can loan money created out of thin air. The federal government can borrow these unlimited funds and keep deficit spending until the cows come home”
We can maintain a certain level of debt. We can’t continue to grow it eternally for free though.
“You idiot.”
I don’t understand why you have to be like this. We can’t simply discuss economics?