The Trump Administration 2017-

[Metropolis]

Except you were afraid of the Boogeyman. I think people who aren't Antifa genuinely want them to start something so they can whip their ass.

[Poe Dameron]

OMG! The rumour had to be debunked that the guy who shot up a church in Sutherland Springs was a member of ANTIFA. wth?

Hadn't even heard that rumor. But rumors jump out all over the place in situations like this. It's the ones that get aired in the media that you've got to worry about. My unfamiliarity with it tells me this one never got outside the fever swamps.

 

 

 

Except you were afraid of the Boogeyman. I think people who aren't Anitfa genuinely want them to start something so they can whip their ass.

 

Oh, they certainly are troublesome. Make no mistake. Any group that thinks itself justified in violence and violating other people's freedom is trouble waiting to happen. Particularly when aided and abetted by authorities who shrug at illegal protests and only take action when their victims strike back. There's clickbait exaggerations to be sure such as this weekend, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't there.

[Ms. Spam]

[Ms. Spam]

Our National Shame has tweeted about Sutherland Springs on November 14..."May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI and Law Enforcement has arrived."

[Poe Dameron]

Well, the Senate finally got one big thing done with the tax cuts. If I could have predicted they'd only get one major bill through, this would have been it. Unexciting and makes businesses happy. Economically, it's fine, but politically it's rather myopic.

[Ms. Spam]

Economically it creates more deficit. Isn't that what we're really after? Less debt?

[Guest]

Deficits only matter if the other party is in power. That's why Democrats are suddenly against them.

[Tank]

Do we talk about the sketchy non-tax related zero hour additions, or is that fake news?

[Poe Dameron]

Economically it creates more deficit. Isn't that what we're really after? Less debt?

That's certainly one of the goals. I'm a bit lukewarm on it either way as you can tell. If they'd gone all out and really simplified the tax code. If they'd really upended the whole thing, I'd be in a lot bigger favor.

 

I've started seeing tax rates as a long term issue, not a short term one. Which is sort of the opposite of all politics.

[pavonis]

What would a "simplified" tax code look like? What is the goal of any simplified tax code, and what exactly is being optimized? Simple is relative, anyway, and "In stochastic, dynamic economies, optimal tax policy requires increased sophistication" (link to quoted paper) It's not as though the calculation or filing of taxes is difficult. A computer can do it, so it's already pretty simple. Do we really need it all to fit on a postcard? So it must be revenue that's intended to be optimized, but what if we're already at the optimal tax plan in the US?

 

We have 50 microcosms we can tweak and experiment on. Did we learn anything from Kansas' experiment on itself?

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

What would a "simplified" tax code look like?

 

Fewer businesses and industries with their own private tax rules for the most part. Though individual tax credits and deductions for behavior rankle as well, particularly for the well off. Mostly, it's a corporate complaint, which is where a lot of this bill is focused.

 

I've never been much of a flat tax guy, though in my ideal world the taxes of all would be pegged to one another so that you couldn't tax one bracket without at least a little bit of pain downstream to curb the desire to punish the rich. Nothing punitive, just enough so that taxes would theoretically be raised on the rich out of necessity and not spite.

 

 

 

It's not as though the calculation or filing of taxes is difficult. A computer can do it, so it's already pretty simple.

 

Sure, for the average person it's no big deal. As a single guy who always takes the standard deduction, I can do it in a few minutes. Though the couple of years where I had my own small business is a whole other matter.

 

Once you start getting into the big money, the tax code is a beast.

 

 

 

We have 50 microcosms we can tweak and experiment on. Did we learn anything from Kansas' experiment on itself?

 

Not really. The Kansas experiment was so short-lived that nothing can be really learned from it. Recall what I said about it being more of a long-term difference. In the short-term the state's budget felt the crunch and that was that. Experiment over. And, for what its worth, it's not like Kansas was doing all that poorly. The budget deficits and cuts were what was pointed to for the most part as the problem. GDP was just sort 'meh" and the unemployment rate started pretty low and went down.

 

Personally, I'd say that Kansas was a model for why such actions should be done a few bites at a time instead of all at once. If you've got a semi-permanent Republican legislature, just make a small cut every year or two and eventually you get there without anyone noticing and no shocked expressions for a budget crunch. Companies like stability and the promise of things gradually improving more than the like grand gestures that might not be sustained.

 

Again, this isn't really one issue that gets me excited.

[pavonis]

If the tax code is too hard for the big money companies to deal with, they can afford to hire people or software to handle it. They have bundles of cash anyway.

 

Are you sure nothing was learned from Kansas? You certainly had something to comment on. I think the lesson from Kansas is that you cant eliminate a tax that makes up 40% of the states revenue, and still pay for the infrastructure that citizens and businesses like to have.

 

Too bad it doesnt get you excited. This is important stuff.

[Poe Dameron]

If the tax code is too hard for the big money companies to deal with, they can afford to hire people or software to handle it. They have bundles of cash anyway.

 

Sure, but the cost of tax compliance is a tax in and of itself, except the government doesn't even pocket that money, it makes it more difficult to enforce (another cost), and is just a general pain in the butt and time suck.

 

 

 

I think the lesson from Kansas is that you cant eliminate a tax that makes up 40% of the states revenue, and still pay for the infrastructure that citizens and businesses like to have.

 

You see, I was looking at it from an economic standpoint. Was Kansas actually doing that poorly in that time period? In truth, the answer is that it was doing fine as a state. It lagged behind its neighbors, so it certainly could have done better, but from the way people were pointing at Kansas, you'd think the bottom had fallen out of the economy when no such thing happened.

 

What people were really focusing on were the budget cuts being made and conflating that with economic calamity. But budget cuts in and of themselves aren't necessarily bad.

 

There's no way to measure it, but I strongly suspect the conflating budget worries with economic performance in the popular press led to a feeling that the state was doing worse than it was and that, along with the belief that the taxes would be raised again, was the actual cause of the state's economy not expanding as expected.

 

 

 

Too bad it doesnt get you excited. This is important stuff.

 

Can't get excited about everything. It's a big government with fingers in a lot of super important pies. I'm just burned out on this subject and, like I said, more than a little annoyed that this in particular is the only thing they could get the votes to accomplish. They're just steering into the stereotype with that.

[Ms. Spam]

Like this tax code isn't going to bring back big companies who've built offices overseas to avoid taxes.

 

I haven't read up on the craziness that was added to the bill yet. I think I'll have to wait until I can take a xanex.

[pavonis]

If paying taxes is a tax too, then what do you call paying a utility bill? I dont see how theyre not just costs of doing business. I would love to learn more about this topic from a relative expert, but Carrie is not posting anymore.

[Poe Dameron]

If paying taxes is a tax too, then what do you call paying a utility bill? I dont see how theyre not just costs of doing business.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say as a tax falls under the umbrella of the cost of doing business in and of itself, but I'll answer.

 

The utilities have, umm utility.

 

Unnecessary costs in tax preparation has no inherent business-related purpose and doesn't even benefit the government. Indeed, it costs the government billions itself from enforcement. It's pretty much the same as the government demanding that a massive pile of money be burned every year (or handed to lawyers I suppose).

[pavonis]

So tax-paid infrastructure utilized by businesses (and commerce in general) is simply a waste? Burning a big pile of money or paying it to lawyers (and accountants?) are equivalent activities? Is this coming from an expert on these topics?

[Poe Dameron]

So tax-paid infrastructure utilized by businesses (and commerce in general) is simply a waste?

What in the world are you talking about?

[Guest]

To be fair, Star Wars has been adding things just because they look cool for a long time.

​And the fans have always eaten it up.

[pavonis]

Hey, it's you and your position that I'm just trying to understand. If you're confused, it's because I'm not clear on what you're claiming.

 

I have gathered that your economic model has only two entities - businesses and government. Taxes imposed on businesses by government incur a cost of preparing and filing those taxes on the business, and there are costs of enforcement for the government. Any money that doesn't stay in a business' bank account, or go to a government coffer, is "wasted" (or "burned" as you put it).

 

The whole point of taxes is that they are intended to create an infrastructure for the society, and the business, to utilize, right? So the cost of collecting the taxes could be considered a part of the infrastructure paid for by the taxes, no? At any rate, it doesn't seem obvious to me that money spent preparing taxes and enforcing payment of taxes is wasted, since the money spent on preparation and enforcement does circulate somewhere in the economy. It just appears "wasted" when the only two entities in the economic model are business and government. I suppose at this point we could tangent off into a discussion of the nature of taxes, or perhaps fiat money, but is there a real economist around here to learn from?

[Poe Dameron]

Hey, it's you and your position that I'm just trying to understand.

 

I never took a position remotely like that and I'm baffled as to what leap in logic led you to it.

 

 

 

At any rate, it doesn't seem obvious to me that money spent preparing taxes and enforcing payment of taxes is wasted, since the money spent on preparation and enforcement does circulate somewhere in the economy. It just appears "wasted" when the only two entities in the economic model are business and government.

 

Yeah, it still is a part of the economy and subject to the velocity of a dollar (which has been falling lately) in general, but the dollar spent hasn't gone to any useful purpose. It's not far from the broken window fallacy. Just because you've created work doesn't mean that you've contributed to the economic benefit of society. Employing the lawyers and accountants is an opportunity cost for the business and the employment of tax enforcers is an opportunity cost for the government. They could be putting those dollars to more effective ends.

 

Not to mention that the lawyers and accountants, highly educated individuals that society has staked an investment in, are tied up in this industry.

[pavonis]

Poe Dameron, on 04 Dec 2017 - 3:36 PM, said:

I never took a position remotely like that and I'm baffled as to what leap in logic led you to it.

You never took a position like what? Your "that" is dangling. If you're baffled, then you can clarify the matter for both of us. It's unfortunate that you find yourself so confusing.

Yeah, it still is a part of the economy and subject to the velocity of a dollar (which has been falling lately) in general, but the dollar spent hasn't gone to any useful purpose. It's not far from the broken window fallacy. Just because you've created work doesn't mean that you've contributed to the economic benefit of society. Employing the lawyers and accountants is an opportunity cost for the business and the employment of tax enforcers is an opportunity cost for the government. They could be putting those dollars to more effective ends.

Not to mention that the lawyers and accountants, highly educated individuals that society has staked an investment in, are tied up in this industry.

Fascinating. What counts as a "useful" purpose? Do you really hold to the "broken window" parable/theory? I wouldn't want to baffle you by claiming that you claimed you believed or supported something that you actually don't, even though you brought it up in the first place.

[Poe Dameron]

You never took a position like what? Your "that" is dangling.

 

Pavonis: So tax-paid infrastructure utilized by businesses (and commerce in general) is simply a waste?

 

Poe: What in the world are you talking about?

 

Pavonis: Hey, it's you and your position that I'm just trying to understand. If you're confused, it's because I'm not clear on what you're claiming.

 

Poe: I never took a position remotely like that and I'm baffled as to what leap in logic led you to it.

 

Seems like a clear back and forth to me.

 

Do you really hold to the "broken window" parable/theory?

 

The rest of my post made clear what my thoughts were on the subject.

 

Poe: Just because you've created work doesn't mean that you've contributed to the economic benefit of society. Employing the lawyers and accountants is an opportunity cost for the business and the employment of tax enforcers is an opportunity cost for the government. They could be putting those dollars to more effective ends.

 

Not to mention that the lawyers and accountants, highly educated individuals that society has staked an investment in, are tied up in this industry.

 

 

 

What counts as a "useful" purpose?

 

Something that has utility and actually forwards the agenda of the primary parties involved. A complex tax code detracts from both parties' agenda in this case (even if third parties benefit). Therefore, waste.

 

I think the better question is why you seem to be defending this obvious economic inefficiency? There is a case to be made for a complex tax code, but the time and money lost to compliance is undeniably a negative even for those that would defend such a tax code.

[Ms. Spam]

Mueller is subpoena-ing!

[Poe Dameron]

Any reason this is news? I assume he's been issuing subpoenas for the past 6 months.