IRS Scandals and Immigration Reform - ONE SOLUTION!

Repeal it, along with the second, eh, Whiny the lying sack of shit?

Again, the question was, Cap'n MidBright, what alternative tax system do you support? We all know what you think of the FairTax, and what I think of the FairTax. All I'm asking is what alternative do you support? Or do you support the current system? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, I certainly do not support the current system. But before attempting to engage in a reasoned discussion of taxation, it would be helpful for you to try to learn something about it. It's clear that you have no understanding of how the FairTax would "work" in practice, and that you're completely flummoxed by this whole issue.

Yes Cappy, what changes should be made in your opinion? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Quite a few, but taxation is only the tip of the iceberg.

For starters, the big run-up in federal government spending over the last ten years is a burden that's going to make it difficult to return to historical trend rates of year-over-year GDP growth under any circumstances. Myriad other problems are also going unaddressed. You must also realize that the FairTax, by itself, wouldn't cover much more than about 50% of current spending levels.

Tax reform is important, but doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you had a powerful V-8 engine that wasn't running very well because all the spark plugs had become fouled, you wouldn't try to address the problem by just replacing a couple of them, would you?

A whole lot of impediments to growth need to be eliminated or fixed before we can have a robust and sustained recovery.

So, again, what alternative tax plan do you support, Cap'n MidBright?

So, again, what alternative tax plan do you support, Cap'n MidBright? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Since you made no effort to respond to any of the points I made earlier, I think I'll pass.

It's clear that you have no interest in learning anything whatsoever about the "FairTax" you so ardently support, so why should I expect that you'd listen to anyone about other tax recommendations?

Your closed mind is locked up as tightly as a high-end jeweler's safe!

I don't agree with you, so I'm close minded. You didn't present any facts, just your own hyperbole. I was trying to get back to a more civil setting by asking you that question, but you refused.

But you think you "won", whatever that means. I hope it makes you feel good.

Actually, I would support almost any system over our current one. I was trying to find some common ground.

Have a nice day, Cap'n MidBright.

whiny is famous for flapping his yap and running away.

Oh the humanity!

I was trying to get back to a more civil setting... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, isn't that nice?

If you were interested in a "more civil setting," why did you start in with all the insults when I first (politely) disagreed with you? You mouthed off (in post #28) with claims that I "sounded stupid," needed to "get educated," and needed to "learn something." And then you followed up by repeatedly popping off with more of the same. I'll just leave it up to the reader to decide who "sounds stupid." (But I don't think that's a tough call.)

I don't agree with you, so I'm close minded... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You still don't get it, do you?

The fact that you don't agree with me is not what demonstrates your closed-mindedness. That would be your obstinate refusal to make any effort to learn about this issue, and your continued failure to address even so much as a single one of the points I made earlier. All you do is continually refer the reader back to the fairtax.org website, which is so suffused with exaggerations and disingenuous B.S. that there's hardly any room for anything else.

You didn't present any facts, just your own hyperbole. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Really?

It seems to me that I offered a concise but fairly comprehensive little rundown of many of the key points concerning this issue in post nos. 71 and 78:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...3&postcount=71

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=78

If you thoroughly read the above two posts and make an effort to think this through, you might learn a thing or two. If you disagree with anything I said, I submit that it would be helpful for you to try to explain why in your own words. That's how people learn! Don't just tell me I'm full of shit and refer me back to one of those biased websites. If you think you're right about something, it helps to determine how you might articulate your point of view.

Sorry, but the rank manifestation of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual laziness just doesn't cut any ice with me.

Author and market commentator Barry Ritholtz usually writes pretty good stuff. Bailout Nation, for instance, is a very good read.

His blog site "The Big Picture" is often worth taking a look at as well:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/

He genarally opens up the site for reader discussion. One thing I really like is the little advisory with which he prefaces the comments section:

"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous."

-- Barry Ritholtz

Thank you for playing, Cap'n MidBright. What do we have for our guest, Johnny?

Thank you for playing, Cap'n MidBright. What do we have for our guest, Johnny? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What do "we" have? Do you really need to ask?

Most obviously, we have a complete refutation of the following absurd claim:

And by the way, I taught university level economics. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LMAO!

You have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the concepts of "average propensity to consume" and "marginal propensity to consume," and you've never even heard the term "tax incidence," yet you taught university level economics? Sure thing!

You're a thorough embarrassment and a rank fraud.

No wonder he was elected

SALINA'S SWEETHEART!

The current tax system is impossible to reform; even with monkeying around with rates and simplification...why ?

Because any reforms won't last but a couple of years; politicians can't resist the urge to pander.

In 1986, Reagan cut the top US tax rate to 28% (equal to the capital gains tax rate), eliminated many deductions (including accelerated depreciation, personal interest expense), etc.

By 1990 Bush had raised the top rate to 31%. By 1994 Clinton had raised the top rate to 39.6%, had cut some of the lower bands, increased the EITC and cut capital gains taxes to 20%. Bush cut the lower income bands further while also reducing the top rate to 35% (still 25% higher than under Reagan).

This whipsawing isn't productive and isn't anyway to run a $3 trillion economy.

The only path to permanent real reform is a tax system that takes the power out of the hands of politicians - A Fair Tax or A Flat Tax. Without a permanent fixed system; it is impossible for us to get a handle on the fiscal mess we created. Stability and Sustainability first; then we can get our fiscal house in order.

Would you like a simple solution to the continuing IRS scandals and Immigration Reform?

Two words:

THE FAIRTAX!!

Think about it. Under the FairTax, there would be no IRS to snoop on law abiding people for political purposes. Also, there would be a huge number of IRS employees needing jobs. Since they are already doing jobs no real American would ever want to do, they are perfectly suited to take over those jobs being done by illegal aliens, you know, the ones doing the jobs no real American would ever do.

We'd save tons of money, and at the same time, we'd be protecting our borders and culture.

It's a win-win all the way around!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Would not need all those "Accountants" that know how to use loop holes. .

The only path to permanent real reform is a tax system that takes the power out of the hands of politicians - A Fair Tax or A Flat Tax. Without a permanent fixed system; it is impossible for us to get a handle on the fiscal mess we created. Stability and Sustainability first; then we can get our fiscal house in order. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It certainly would be nice to simplify and de-junk the tax system, and would be especially nice to diminish the IRS's ability to make life miserable for so many of us.

But what most FairTax supporters apparently fail to understand (or will not acknowledge) is that since it would be a very regressive tax, it's as much of a political non-starter as one could possibly imagine. That's especially true in view of the dramatic increase in income inequality over the last four decades. If the idea ever started to get off the ground, any hint of popular support would collapse overnight when people discovered what a huge tax cut it would be for affluent taxpayers.

It should also be remembered that the FairTax wouldn't come remotely close to replacing the revenue produced by the current system. So a consumption tax would only be capable of replacing part of our current tax system, not all of it.

To that end, a few conservative economists (Harvard's Robert Barro, for example) have suggested that it would be beneficial to replace the payroll tax and income taxes on about the bottom three deciles of the income distribution with a consumption tax, and levy a simplified flat tax on higher incomes. The point is that relative to the status quo, such a tax system would be far more efficient, would produce less of what we refer to as "deadweight loss," and would do less to disincentivize employment, investment, and production.

And huge piles of junk that have been added to the tax code over the last few decades could be hauled off.