Here’s the best line that I’ve read in a long, long time:
Today’s tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice.
It’s penned by George Will, and appears in his column in today’s Washington Post. The entire column is worth reading, as it very nicely summarizes Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan for restoring at least some sanity to Uncle Sam’s fiscal looney bin.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 80 comments }
← Previous Comments
As usual muirduck is stuck in stupidity.
We the American people are taxed to our armpits and, as I understand it, with certainty that taxation did not prevent Bernie (or any of the other thieves of this nation, large or small) from stealing billions.
On a pure market basis, taxation as a means of preventing theft, as the Teacup Chihuahua suggests, is about as stupid an idea as get be advanced.
All those who steal our money through taxation can do is in 99% of the cases, respond, take statements, investigate, and hopefully actually find out who did it, capture them, and god forbid actually recover the stolen goods. Unfortunately on a pure market basis they aren't even able to show a decent track record in that.
Furthermore, none of taxation was able to produce an educational system that would teach a certain George in California to think.
slave- a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.
As an “employee” the only rights you have with your employer are those that have been negotiated by a third party (government). Your employer determines your responsibilities, the government determines your rights. The only right an employee has is to decide whether or not to take the job. The government negotiated a deal for you that states your gross earnings are taxable, the employer must pay taxes for the employee (which the employee can petition to have returned), and that the employer must pay several additional taxes which are based on gross pay.
None of these deals the government has put in place to “protect” employees apply to the self-employed.
I can agree with Will on this one, as long as we recognize that most of the provisions in the tax code he references are put there at the behest of business lobbyists that Congress wants to be “nice” to, perhaps because they've received, and hope to receive more, massive campaign contributions from them.
Of course, the Citizens United decision will just lead to more of this sadism, so I guess that means people who support CU are masochists.
I happen to have credentials on this one. I worked for years on the Senate Finance Committee staff, which has jurisdiction over all tax matters in the Senate, and as a senior official at the Treasury Dept.
But I look forward to hearing (and receiving vitriolic abuse, no doubt) from those of you who have no relevant experience and haven't really read or thought much about it, but still manage to have very strong opinions.
Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing.
Yes! Purity!
Yes, vidyohs! To the barricades! It's time to overthrow our democratic-republican form of government!
Cast off your chains!!
By the way, you need to read something about the 13th Amendment. You might be less likely to embarrass yourself.
I know, it's a tall order.
At last, a rational voice enters the fray. But beware, dk, you will confuse them with evidence.
Too subtle an argument for them, I'm afraid, muirgeo.
Which is why I ask mesa for some citation besides an opinion article. If he can't agree with me, I hope he can at least furnish facts that agree with him.
(1) Exactly.
(2) ditto
Good luck, my friend.
I've found that this hope is OCCASSIONALLY fulfiled by a few folks on this site, and more power to 'em.
But I'm not sure most of them know the difference between evidence and opinion.
Not subtle, just dumb.
And if I'm armed and decent folk were likewise armed, then it matters not if a thug is 6' 9″. On the other hand, if the thug has an army of agents to apply it's extortion, then I'm SOL.
The Supreme court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens from criminals.
George and others seem to be under the impression that political agency can do no wrong against its citizens.
And that is why I used my Baltimore example. I am happy to pay taxes for certain government services such as police, courts, and prisons to protect citizens. Problem is the Baltimore and Maryland government has public protection as some sort of secondary objective. They won't arrest violent people, and when they do the criminals are let right back out. So government fails in its most basic responsibilities. And Muirgeo's team is in charge. Go figure.
Disclaimer: I hate both parties in charge.
I think there is a flaw in the supposition that provision of policing is “unique” as a service.
Certainly government frequently exhibits the characteristics of the so-called market monopolies it's supposed to protect us against.
Lame brained Gil farts and a Publius_Texus blows through.
Your brand of stupidity just plain stinks.
And you, vidyohs, are what follows. You should have learned by now, grasshoppa, never trust a fart.
I see you attended the muigeo school of economics reading miscomprehension.
If I have to explain the fatuous and flagrant hypocrisy of 1) branding oneself as a “deficit hawk,” then 2) committing the single largest budgetary crime in the past century, then you're dumber than I thought. Good lord.
He has no intention (nor do any of these liars currently in office) of reducing spending, because that runs contrary to the program, which is maximum expenditure, and maximum expansion of government power. Period.
And you can shove your precious “it's not federal revenue” straight up your sizable ass, which currently also houses your head.
He is a scumbag and a liar, and you continue to be a tool. Why are you still talking? I mean, seriously, dude, get a freakin' clue. And piss off.
Are you even capable of holding a normal conversation with people? The fact that you can't cite anything to support your accusations against Orszag, the fact that “you're dumb” constitutes your refutation of my understanding of the debt, and the fact that scatalogical references are all you can muster to justify your highly unorthodox understanding of public budgeting just reinforces the fact that these posts of yours are a waste of space on here.
See – and I managed to lay that out plainly without insulting your intelligence, your appearance, or anything else about you as a person – which is more than I can say about your response.
Been reading too much “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” books?
I sure jails have a whole wing full of people who think that they can use the 13th Amendment to avoid paying taxes.
No. Just being a dad and navigating life.
Please, Gil. Do some homework before you speak up. There's no connect between the 13th and paying taxes.
Anyone who would cite the 13th as a defense for not paying taxes is either a kook or has one for an attorney.
Gee, vidyohs reckons he can find magical ways to avoid taxes then veers to the 13th Amendment. Who's the kook?
DK, talking to you is slightly less entertaining than being stabbed.
Of course, 1) it’s the cost, and 2) they will be federal revenues, even if not stipulated up front. Mandatory participation constituted a tax, and the tilted playing field in the exchanges created will drive up private insurance cost – mandate or not – and rig the game in the government's favor.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the endgame here, as stipulated by Barney Buttpilot himself was single payer, and both of these proposals contained means to that end, whether it be the public option, or strict participation and regulation in the “insurance exchanges” themselves. Within a decade most, if not all, major health insurers will exit the space, and the federal government will be running it.
And so-called death panels are absolutely in these plans. You’re a fool, moron, and economic charlatan not to know this: What happens absent a market-clearing price mechanism? Say it with me everyone – Rationing! Yes, welcome to Britain (or worse). That’s precisely what would be determined by the Health dictator (or a proxy/subordinate thereof) created by these proposals. It would necessarily have to occur, because there is no other mechanism for cost containment.
And the cost? You think $2 trillion is a lot? Horsecrap. The actual cost will be closer to $3 – 5 trillion, over 10 years. Yes, that much, possibly more. Again, you’re a fool to believe otherwise, given the stellar track record of Congressional entitlement cost prediction.
And Orszag and you want to do this in this fiscal environment. Complete, total, utter bullshit.
So, please go home now, little boy, because you are very confused and tiresome. Go away.
LMAO @ Barney Buttpilot
RE: “What happens absent a market-clearing price mechanism? Say it with me everyone – Rationing! “
Yes – that's exactly what happens when you remove the price mechanism. Why do you think I have CONSISTENTLY opposed the mandate on here? Why do you think I have CONSISTENTLY opposed single payer on here. The fact that you're right that the mandate is bad policy doesn't mean your view of Orszag or the budget makes any sense.
RE: “Mandatory participation constituted a tax, and the tilted playing field in the exchanges created will drive up private insurance cost”
ANY regulation imposes costs and therefore may have an impact like a tax. Are you going to advocate putting all costs from all regulation in the budget? You're making no sense. Why would you put something in the revenue side of the budget that they can't appropriate on the spending side of the budget? Since when has “it's a cost” been a reason to use it as a budget number? I'm mandated to have a seatbelt in my car. That car would have been cheaper if I could buy one without a seatbelt. Should the fed's jot down the extra few bucks as tax revenue? Come on – be serious for once.
Good lord – how old are you?
This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose of every dollar they put into these accounts.
This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose of every dollar they put into these accounts.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.