How to fix it.

[antagon]

Simply put, power should be as decentralized as possible. It is one of the cornerstones of this nation and we are flowing power to a single source on a daily basis.

I see split feelings on centrality of government in our early history. We have always been decidedly federal, however, rather than confederate. Apart from avoiding a war of annexation, there are no merits to confederacy.

State and local governments are most of our government, and it would be cool if government was smaller, starting with those. Decentralize to the people and cool it with all these traffic cops.

If you wish to separate then, fine. As far as particulars, no. I don’t like any of them at all and that includes the ones that I currently enjoy having and have invaded the market for so long that they would be extremely difficult to root out. The mortgage deduction is a good example of this. Why do we have such a deduction?

Because interest income is taxable.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville

This is exactly what is happening and it is all covered by your (and those that believe the same) defense of the ‘status quo’ and the false idea that some grand amount of ‘reasoning behind our tax system is vastly more considered than any of the proposed changes.’

There are many more man-hours - I mean by exponents here - which have been dedicated to our tax code when compared to any 'keep it simple, stupid' plan. It shows. It's not perfect, but it is arguably the best on the planet, and ever in the history of man.... Like the Constitution itself.

The problem with cynicism is that it must use hyperbole. Here's a rehash:

"The American Republic will endure as long as Congress recognizes that their mandate and the largess belong to the public."
- antagon

I actually don’t mind the concept altogether but this is an entirely different matter. Tax law is not structured in any way shape or form according to Pigou’s case.

Sin tax, virtue deduction? Between some of that and a general effort to value-added tax per the mortgage example above, we can create some collateral benefits while funding gov't.

First, as sin taxes currently exist, it is a scheme to extract more money out of the system without losing support of the voters. For instance, Washington recently passed such a law on ‘sugary’ products. The idea was that other tax proposals were not popular but they were able to sell the sin tax because the majority of people believed that the tax would not affect them so what do they care. On top of this, collections from these taxes do not go to counterbalance the negative costs of the target. The taxes on this sugary product did not go to any health problems associated with the product itself. They went into the general funds where they are spent on whatever pet project they want to use them on. Essentially, there is no counterbalance of ‘hidden’ societal costs for the taxed products. Instead, it is a vehicle to increase taxes without actually increasing taxes. Lastly, they create a negative cycle in that as the tax works to decrease the usage of the product through higher price, the tax collections DECREASE. This creates an income hole because the tax itself was completely unrelated to the societal costs in the first place so the ever increasing need will be to increase the tax or expand on new taxes with new product to cover the gap.

Now, for what I believe should constitute a proper ‘sin’ tax. I have to agree that there are product that cause undue side effects that tax monies need to pay for and if this is the case, I believe it is justified to apply a specific tax to pay for it. In these cases, the monies collected from the tax should be treated as a separate entity that ONLY goes to alleviate the given burden. Using this method you remove the incentive for politicians to use it as a way around paying the political price for raising taxes. You also eliminate the diminishing collections as the product usage goes down because the lower usage leads to lower costs fighting the vices that it brings.

None of this has anything to do with my original point though

It does imperil a point you'd made earlier: the fundamental role of tax is finance. I say finance w/ marginalized drag (or drag biased to undesirables) and w/ collateral benefit. I'd keep on pluggin in that direction this century, and go after more usage-based taxation alongside higher rates and MORE shelter.

I couldn't side with you on tax funds for targeted tax. Just a jab or a pick-me-up is all the influence the tax-code needs. Lord knows we wont like some sugar taskforce following through on shit.

Companies everywhere lobby governments everywhere. The purpose of politicians responding to lobbyists on a perk-size basis is similar to the way they respond to other constituents on an electoral-map basis. I feel democracy is an effective way for a government to participate in the development of the country its named after. This is what the govt's expected to do.

Yes, it is but NOT in the manner that it is doing so now. Sorry, it is not nor should it be ‘expected’ that the government operate on a preferential basis for the representatives biggest financial backers. This is akin to saying that people in Colorado’s 11th district should get a tax break that no one else receives because their rep managed to get one passed in a bill. Sorry but that is not how things should work.

Nobody likes corruption, but remember, our tax code must be even across the states. Circumstances, not areas or individuals get tax breaks, etc.

I'm telling you: this stuff is thought out.

 

[Intense]

I wonder what mechanism prescribes that there be 51 YEA votes to pass in the Senate. As we know, our President voted "present" a number of times; Could a bill pass with 47 YEA, 46 NAY and 7 "Present" votes?

One would think that if nothing else, the Constitution would insist that there be a majority of Senators and Congresspersons voting in favor of a bill to ensure it's passage.

Just another example of why we need to further perfect the document. NOW!!

The Senate and the House, have the Constitutional Power to set Their own Rules. They always have.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Seems like a pretty large loophole. So I would imagine if a third party was afoot, the party that was in power could change the rules to make it to where whatever membership level they were at is enough to pass bills?

They have come close on a few issues.Usually the Party in Control keeps the stuff they don't like in committee, so they never reach the floor for a vote. There are plenty of tricks at play, depending on who is in control. Still Each House plays by it's own rules. Separation of Powers.

 

[candycorn]

The Senate and the House, have the Constitutional Power to set Their own Rules. They always have.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Seems like a pretty large loophole. So I would imagine if a third party was afoot, the party that was in power could change the rules to make it to where whatever membership level they were at is enough to pass bills?

They have come close on a few issues.Usually the Party in Control keeps the stuff they don't like in committee, so they never reach the floor for a vote. There are plenty of tricks at play, depending on who is in control..

Yes, I know.

I would like to have that changed.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if we're going to pay off this massive national debt, we're going to have to make some incredibly painful cuts to government spending. Whomever is in the White House can be shielded from the painful yet necessary actions by such tactics.