Tags: 
Categories: 
Facing the self-described fiscal cliff, the amount of rhetoric pouring out of Washington unfiltered by the media conducting their own war of thoughts and ideas has completely obscured two disturbing concepts that sadly say a lot about the state of America. Whichever plan is adopted, we are likely looking at the end of tax deductions for home ownership and for charitable giving. Milton Friedman famously said that you should tax behavior that you want to discourage and these latest steps are a sad commentary on the state of American values.
For many U.S. taxpayers the inability to take these deductions has been in place for some time as this nasty little device called the “alternative minimum tax” has been decreasing or eliminating mortgage and charitable deductions for many since the adoption of the Clinton tax plan revisions. The current propose changes would just extend those limitations to a much broader audience.
Everyone agrees that something needs to be done to reform the United States tax code. The real problem with a truly simplified tax code is that it would severely limit the patronage system keeping most if not all legislators returning to office in out nation’s capital. A simplified tax code would eliminate special deductions, eliminate corporate welfare, limit congressional “flexibility” in creating tax loopholes and exemptions and eliminate a myriad of similar favors to be doled out by elected representatives. Everyone from both parties should want this kind of tax reform, but anyone daring to espouse a simple system is immediately branded reactionary, crazy or simply “a wacko.” There are several trillion reasons why this kind of reform is highly unlikely.
Democrats have created an entire voting based on those who pay no taxes at all. Promising more for nothing, an entire generation now sadly thinks that they are owed regardless of what they have done with their life. Social programs were largely started to create a very temporary safety net for those who had fallen on hard times. That has morphed into “rights” to indefinite entitlements for folks defined as in poverty that have on average one or two cars, two or three televisions, an xbox game system, heating and air conditioning, washer and dryer and the list goes on. I don’t begrudge anyone having any of those things, I just find it hypocritical that we call those people living in poverty and provide no incentive for them to find work or be otherwise productive.
In the meantime, both parties will find imaginary ghosts to attack to deflect from the kind of reform that our country really needs – a fair and evenly applied tax code where Warren Buffet finally pays his fair share. By the way, my secretary pays more taxes than Warren Buffet and that has nothing to do with income taxes on those making more that $250,000 or more – it is because Buffet benefits directly from the tax deductions and loopholes afforded to those with influence in Washington D.C. Hey, It’s “just our system,” what are you going to do?
…
HotAir
Another shining example of your demonizing Democrats. I did not know you were also a Revisionist Historian.
First, perhaps you could identify the “two disturbing concepts” you allude to as any Composition 101 teacher in high school would expect of you.
Second, I’m not sure what “whichever plan is adopted” is referring to as all of the “unfiltered rhetoric” I have witnessed in recent days has clearly been talk of “balanced approaches” and willingness to compromise, which indicates a melding of proposals, not either/or steadfast petulance. I’ve witnessed unprecedented meetings with the President which have included input from various sectors of our society, including a meeting with Congressional leaders. How you have arrived at your opinion that “we are likely looking at the end of tax deductions for home ownership and for charitable giving” is beyond me as NOONE has offered up which deductions and tax preferences are on the table.
Third, you may want to read history before trying to revise it. Your citation of the AMT harming taxpayers “since the adoption of the Clinton tax plan revisions” is the least of the “harms” done by the AMT. Did you not get the memo regarding the Tax Reform Act of 1969 passed under Nixon, which was the predecessor of current AMT legislation? Did you not get the memo regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 passed under Reagan which included the most significant changes to AMT? Did you not get the memo of the devestating effects of the Bush era tax cuts which decreased marginal tax rates for all income tax brackets without making corresponding changes to AMT rates? You have heard of what economists call the “take-back effect” of the Bush tax cuts, haven’t you? B…b…but Clinton! (Democrat, of course!) Kudos for boiling down a highly complex, and yes very unfair tax legislation, and only throwing it at the feet of Clinton.
Fourth, you falsely proclaim “anyone daring to espouse a simple system is immediately branded reactionary, crazy or simply “a wacko”.” I’ll just consider this bloviating from a right winger as quite the opposite is true and you would be hard pressed to provide substantiation for your misguided opinion. Poll after poll, as do many legislators from both sides of the aisle, shows the majority wants a simpler tax code. Accountants and lawyers are obviously the only ones that want to continue a complex tax code. Oh, and the weathier among us who have all the special carve-outs that the majority of citizens will never be able to use.
Fifth, you are repeating yet another false narrative that “Democrats have created an entire voting based on those who pay no taxes at all.” Taxes are not paid based on the party one is registered with but on income and use of the same tax code that everyone else uses in this country. There are plenty of Republicans who also “pay no taxes at all” (I’m assuming you just forgot the “no federal income taxes” cherry picked liability and didn’t mean “no” taxes) so I could easily state, erroneously as you have, that Republicans have created an entire base of tax deadbeats as well (like historically Republican Grandma’s and veterans). Once again, you attempt to denigrate and marginalize Democrat’s allegiance based on them daring to use the tax code while completely ignoring that Democrats could ever actually possess an ideology aligned with the Democratic Party.
Sixth, this disgusting characterization of some of your fellow citizens as being “owed regardless of what they have done with their life” clearly shows you have zero intellectual honesty. You completely ignore WHO is receiving these safety nets when the elderly are one of the largest recipients of means-tested benefits. You completely ignore how many WORKING poor receive the means-tested benefits. Your beef is with the waste, fraud and abuse, which is approximated at 10% and which anyone would agree needs to be identified and stopped. To put this in perspective, 10% is the same approximated Medicare waste, fraud and abuse perpetuated by medical “professionals”. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the “possessions” you list were more often than not obtained prior to falling into poverty. Never mind that the auto is usually an old “beater” and not a BMW like lawyers possess. Heating and A/C, washer/dryers, refrigerators and “the list goes on” are the result of them being a part of the rental property the poor live in as most recipients are not the landed gentry.
The real hypocrit here is YOU with your elitist attitude that everyone using earned benefits are somehow leeches with some fictitious “entitlement mentality” when the MAJORITY are both embarassed by using the safety nets as well as desparate to find a (better) job and move out of poverty. This opinion piece is by far one of your most disingenuous to date feebly attempting to define a whole group of fellow citizens as malingerers because of their political affiliation and over-simplifying complex issues. Shame on you, GW.
Wow Snoopy, for a piece that attacked both parties equally, it prompted a lot of vitriol from you. The main point of the post is that no matter how much lip service is given to simplifying the tax code, neither political party really wants to undertake tax simplification because that would greatly reduce the patronage that all electeds from both parties can demand from donors.
Sorry you are “offend” by my statements that people will vote themselves benefits out of strict self-interest but I am willing to stand with Aristotle and de Tocqueville that both predicted exactly this phenomenon.
B.S. Alert;
“…a piece that attacked both parties equally…”
WHERE, OH WHERE, ARE YOUR CRITICISM’S OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
You’re just a pathological liar.
“The real problem with a truly simplified tax code is that it would severely limit the patronage system keeping most if not all legislators returning to office in out nation’s capital. A simplified tax code would eliminate special deductions, eliminate corporate welfare, limit congressional “flexibility” in creating tax loopholes and exemptions and eliminate a myriad of similar favors to be doled out by elected representatives. Everyone from both parties should want this kind of tax reform, but anyone daring to espouse a simple system is immediately branded reactionary, crazy or simply “a wacko.” Almost all of the first three paragraphs applies to both parties. Please read what is actually written and not just make it say what you want it to.
Do you understand the meaning of the word equally, as in “…a piece that attacked both parties equally…”?
You did NOT criticize the republican party.
And FYI this; “Everyone from both parties should want this kind of tax reform…”
does NOT equal this; “Democrats have created an entire voting based on those who pay no taxes at all. Promising more for nothing, an entire generation now sadly thinks that they are owed regardless of what they have done with their life. …blah,blah,blah”
Liar.
No, GW, you did not “attack both parties equally”. You singled out Democrats, again, as “creating” some fictitious voting [block? base?] consisting of a singular reason for party affiliation because they pay no taxes (legally, I might add). No mention of the large block of Republicans who ALSO pay no taxes (Grannies and veterans, etc) or the Republican Party’s courting (creating?) them as their “base”. You ignore ideology and limit to monetary considerations when it comes to Democrats and the MANY reasons they align with the Democratic Party.
You also clearly attacked only the Democrat (Clinton) for the problems with the AMT. Not only did you not mention any of the far more onerous effects legislated under Republicans, as I pointed out, you didn’t even bother to respond to the inconvenient truths of Republican administrations’ culpability I pointed out.
I challenge you to point to even one “vitrioloc” statement I made. Is my disputing your conclusions and expressing contrary opinions now simply deemed “vitriol” and shrugged off? If criticism of your views is not wanted, perhaps you should find another hobby. You obviously are not interested in “discussion” as you didn’t address even one of the six points I made. Instead you just add another insult by once again perpetuating the false narrative that your fellow citizens exercize their vote solely to “vote themselves benefits out of strict self-interest”. Yes, it is insulting that you would even think that people vote only for “benefits”. Dispute my comments with something other than a gesture reserved for shooing away flies.
Quote of the day:
“Most people on public assitance don’t have a character flaw. They just have a tough life.” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
It is only because a majority of Republican politicians seem to owe more allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their constituents that the elimination of the mortgage and charity deductions are even being considered. I have never heard any rational explanation for how a private person could get a whole group of politicians to make a promise to that individual to vote a certain way on a certain issue, and have the politicians feel bound by that promise, even at the expense of those that politician is supposed to represent, but that seems to be the case.
Yes, it is more complicated than just the tax increase. We will certainly need to cut spending as well. But our nation prospered, and had tremendous job growth and a balanced budget while Clinton was president. Allowing the tax cut for those at the top to expire is necessary if we are to begin to reduce the deficit, and it will have little effect on job growth. It is wrong for Republicans to say we should eliminate valued deductions instead.
America’s economy is now socialism. Workers support non-workers for whatever the reason they do not work. In a true Republic free market capitalism raises the standard of living for all including the poor. But not so with socialism because workers are punished directly in proportion to how well they do. Free market capitalism in a true Republic also creates some real winners, as it should. In general, these real winners along with those doing pretty well (the middle class) have provided for the poor and disadvantaged through America’s history voluntarily. Congress, however, desired a piece of the winners’ pie and became quite corrupt forming unseen alliances. Instead of protecting the people, as politicians or political parties they work to pit groups against each other to garner votes and secure their election. Looks like Republicans are losing in garnering these groups as it is an easier sell to tell people they are owed a life, to blame others for their misfortunes, and that they can’t make it on their own. I wonder if the Black and Hispanic churches that teach social justice teach hatred, blame and jealously instead of love and forgiveness? In modern day language, social justice means redistribution of wealth which is socialism. It is truly in a sad state of affairs for all Americans and for our future generations.
Why don’t you come back when you learn what Socialism is.