Paying Their Fair Share - The Myth

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Setting the threshold at a value like 30k makes it clear that the intent is to hit big city populations.

I was really in a mockery mode, but you always have good comments. So I'll response for discussion seriously:

So what if the "intent" is really to just give every citizen the SAME thresh hold?

If the big city populations get hit in a non-uniform way, then the discussion is really about what's wrong with the economics of big cities and would it be a net benefit, at that point, to let the chips fall vs trying to salvage what could be indicated by this very symptom, as a flaw in an artificially propped up urban structure.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

WHAT??!! If you delete the mortgage deductions thousand of real estate agents will be put out of work.

If the nation does move to do this, it would need to be phased in over a period of time - 10-20 years. In the 20 year model, each year your interest deduction is reduced by 5% until it's finally 0 in 20 years.

No phase out means an immediate 20-35% drop in home values and a substantial increase in the already large number of underwater mortgages. Why does that matter? People will be unable to move and the normal migration of people towards demand for work will collapse.

Grandfather all existing loans, but remove deduction for all new? Same problem as above - it would be too expensive for people to ever move, so far fewer would. This sort of problem was seen with Prop 13 in California - in Huntington Beach family homes became available when a person died, but otherwise turnover was minimal, even though these 3/2 ranchers were no longer appropriate for the aging couple or widows. It wreck havoc on the school systems until an entire generation of people died out.

The phase in avoids the abrupt shock to the system.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

WHAT??!! If you delete the mortgage deductions thousand of real estate agents will be put out of work.

It wreck havoc on the school systems until an entire generation of people died out. .

That was in mockery mode to agree with Billvon that everybody is happy to implement on the "other guy". So I have to stay in character....


I agree a phase in is always better than shock when the problem is so huge and widespread to affect a substantial portion of the population. (Once the affect is ABOVE a certain threshold, well then the effect mitigates since the pain is shared equally......)

But could we accelerate the process by encouraging that entire generation to die out faster??

perhaps through tax credits

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So what if the "intent" is really to just give every citizen the SAME thresh hold?

If the big city populations get hit in a non-uniform way, then the discussion is really about what's wrong with the economics of big cities and would it be a net benefit, at that point, to let the chips fall vs trying to salvage what could be indicated by this very symptom, as a flaw in an artificially propped up urban structure.

I tried to answer to some of this in my subsequent post. The notion of market forces works best for gradual change, but when we're looking at abrupt change it isn't so pretty. Chaos is expensive to the system.

The problems of simple numeric thresholds lay in the huge variations of income and cost of living across our nation. Salaries commonly vary by a factor of 2 or so, but housing costs can vary by 5x and higher.

The tax system has always tried to treat everyone identically, regardless of location. It's bordering on impossible to solve the 'problem' of location, solutions cause nearly as much trouble as they solve. Give people in the 94105 (SF Financial District) preferential treatment and people will quickly tried to set up telecommute lives elsewhere where the CoL is 1/3rd.

You and a couple others put out the question - should we be discouraging this high CoL locations from existing...and rather promote a redistribution of talent and demand across the rest of the country. I can't say I would agree. The synergistic gains from having these concentrations of technology people, for example, leads to better results. With the finally growing trend towards telecommuting this might be less a factor, but it's more than just the time spent in the office. Same for the biotech and financial clusters.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But could we accelerate the process by encouraging that entire generation to die out faster??

perhaps through tax credits

one massive earthquake (See Lex Luthor) would take care of California. Remains to be seen if Sandy will depress NYC values any, or just drain us all to rebuild.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

But could we accelerate the process by encouraging that entire generation to die out faster??

No doubt removing the deduction for medical expenses will help out there. See, it all works out!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Great. So we can put you down as supporting a flat tax and eliminating all deductions?

I'm perfectly fine with a flat tax starting above the poverty line. Sure, remove all deductions. (Just to be clear, that means removing tax deductions for soldiers serving in combat zones, ending tax-free or tax-reduced retirement accounts etc.)

Works for me. However, I would also be in favor of increasing their salary considerably if they are in a combat zone.

One of the things that goads me the most is the complexity of out tax system. I think this is something you and I have pretty much always agreed on.

[billvon 3,058]

>Works for me. However, I would also be in favor of increasing their salary
>considerably if they are in a combat zone.

I don't think this is a good time to increase spending again, but that's a separate discussion.

>One of the things that goads me the most is the complexity of out tax system.

Yes, that's a problem.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You and a couple others put out the question - should we be discouraging this high CoL locations from existing...and rather promote a redistribution of talent and demand across the rest of the country. I can't say I would agree. The synergistic gains........

not 'discouraging' or 'encouraging' anything - just saying the government can stay out of it and let whatever needs to happen....happen. When everyone has the same rules to live by.

If 'better results' come from concentration, then the industry surrounding that concentration should naturally result in the ability to support it - even if the population has to live under the same rules as everyone else. If not, then clearly the better results weren't.......'better' enough. I'm operating under the assumption that - If it has to be propped up, then it's broken -

certainly many here disagree with that assumptions when they really want their favorite project propped up

I have to acknowledge one thing - without the space program we sure wouldn't be able get no Tang anywhere.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Works for me. However, I would also be in favor of increasing their salary considerably if they are in a combat zone.

I would certainly be in favor of letting the market dictate what they make in terms of supply and demand. Seems that if you take away the tax exempt status, you'd get fewer volunteers and then the pay to attract them would increase without pre-emptive intervention. Stop fiddling with the knobs. Let it happen.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,514]

To expand on this discussion (which I kind of wish our congresscritters were having within our hearing -- I'm sure some of them are in private), it occurs to me that someone is going to be hurt short-term by any entirely-simplified plan that is proposed. There are a number of entirely-simplified options, so this isn't really a loaded question.

Who do we hurt?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

To expand on this discussion (which I kind of wish our congresscritters were having within our hearing -- I'm sure some of them are in private), it occurs to me that someone is going to be hurt short-term by any entirely-simplified plan that is proposed. There are a number of entirely-simplified options, so this isn't really a loaded question.

Who do we hurt?

if you hit everyone, then it's palatable - but the biggest shock to anything that's remotely "fair" will 'hurt' about everyone and anyone - or at least be sold as such - you don't really find out until all the plusses and minuses get tallied up on an individual basis.

If someone is situated that they CLEARLY get a lot more plusses than minuses without doing the math - then it's likely they were unfairly preferenced (the converse is true too), so it's hard to feel sorry for them.....

Kelpy is right, a phase in over time is the least shocking, but do you think any Congress has the commitment to stick to any plan over 2 years long?

So rip the bandaids off at once is the only way it'll really happen. Then the question is do we survive the shock long enough to adjust, or do we cry that it hurts too much and put the bandaids back on and eventually resume our march to becoming Greece and co?

(I'm being generous, I think 2 years to commit to anything is out of scope for congress critters or a president)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,058]

>it occurs to me that someone is going to be hurt short-term by any entirely-simplified
>plan that is proposed.

I'd change that to "someone is going to be hurt by ANY change." Outside of ending all taxation, any plan will have winners and losers.

I think there's an idea that the simpler the plan the more fair it is, or at least the less you can muck with it. Unfortunately there's no such thing. If we did go to a flat 25% tax, no exceptions, no deductions, no credits, then the rich would simply change their investing strategies and move more money out of the country, use more byzantine compensation methods so they do not get as much salary while retaining the same benefits. And then everyone else's taxes go up to make up the difference.

(That's not to say that there is no benefit in simplifying the tax code, but that's not going to solve the problem any more than adding rules will. But at least it will cost less to administer it, and people will have a slightly higher chance of understanding it.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>(That's not to say that there is no benefit in simplifying the tax code, but that's not going to solve the problem any more than adding rules will. But at least it will cost less to administer it, and people will have a slightly higher chance of understanding it.)

and those individuals, rich and otherwise (everyone will do what they can though you only blame one class) - will be much more clearly identifiable as they try when there's a lot less to hide behind

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,058]

>and those individuals, rich and otherwise (everyone will do what they can though you
>only blame one class)

Not blaming them. Everyone will try to do what they can to avoid taxation (they do now) - but realistically only the rich will have the resources to incorporate and invest in foreign firms, to use one example.

> will be much more clearly identifiable as they try when there's a lot less to hide behind

I don't think there's any problems involved in identifying them now. Public figures who release their taxes will show up just as easily then as they do now. Individual citizens will enjoy the same privacy they do now.

(I'm assuming you aren't talking about changing privacy laws to make everyone's tax return public or something)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>(I'm assuming you aren't talking about changing privacy laws to make everyone's tax return public or something)

not at all - when the rules are simpler, there are just fewer ways to game the system, and those are more easily identified - nothing more insidious than that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airdvr 210]

Federal Sales tax?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

And when this new tax scheme makes it too expensive to have children and the population starts declining. What would you suggest be done?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And when this new tax scheme makes it too expensive to have children and the population starts declining. What would you suggest be done?

we could then take old people and dehydrate them and use the resulting powder for low cost energy drinks, and as substrate for various materials

why would it be too expensive? you didn't do the math did you?

Or does Canada pay people to have sex? I'm sure it's very complicated. Or are you insinuating that having a simple tax system would drive a massive trade imbalance?

you're hiding a lot of assumptions behind your question, could you flesh it out a bit?

(of course, this is all just a discussion in idealism - so strawman away all you like - but it sounds like you prefer government interference in reproduction then? perhaps you want to require the family unit to be restricted to just one man and woman of child bearing ages? and massive credits for upbringing, etc etc etc.... help, I need more strawmen to counter this in depth argument.....!@@!!!)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,058]

>And when this new tax scheme makes it too expensive to have children and
>the population starts declining. What would you suggest be done?

Stop building new highways? Come up with a more non-Ponzi-ish scheme to support future expenditures? Let more people immigrate? Have a "half price on all sperm" special at the sperm bank to entice more lesbians to start families?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

you're hiding a lot of assumptions behind your question, could you flesh it out a bit?

I am not trying to necessarily make any assumptions. I just don't agree that government does not have a role in some from of social engineering. A country will need to maintain some growth for it to prosper, or at least maintain a steady base of employable people.

Some of these items have long lag times...as in 18 years or so. I am not convinced that simple market forces will deal with lag times of that length.

I think the idea is utopian.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think the idea is utopian.

why thank you






(but I get your point, Kelp put forth that minimizing the shock to the system would require phase in - I agreed, other than I don't think the current system has that long a concentration span nor the public that much tolerance for pain of any kind......) I think that government involvement in social engineering is WAY over the top. But I agree that it might be a necessary evil and TINY tweaks here and there are unavoidable - but the sledgehammer approach of today is clearly a total system fail despite the best of intentions (in many cases anyway - there's still blatant self interest examples out there anyway).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Quote

...restricted to just one man and woman of child bearing ages?

What means a man of child bearing age?

[billvon 3,058]

>What means a man of child bearing age?

Guy between 13-60 I imagine.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>What means a man of child bearing age?

Guy between 13-60 I imagine.

I guess non-sterile - it's terribly unfair, perhaps women past menopause should get a tax credit of some kind.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants