Our Next President?

[geodrome]

Re: Our Next President?

How about a flat fee from every citizen? Say $4000 a year

[geodrome]

Re: Our Next President?

You misunderstand me. The US seems to be going to great lengths to keep them rolling in the dough, and it may be time to stop. When the topic comes up we invariably hear from our conservative friends how the magical forces of the free market can somehow make healthcare cheaper and better if we would just give the insurance companies everything they want - selling polices across state lines with no regulation, and increased ability to sell entirely worthless polices for half the price of real insurance. There is no place in the world now where a fully private, for-profit health insurance system delivers excellent care for most people at a low price.

Untold millions are spent by the insurance industry lobby to make sure those barriers to selling health care insurance across state lines stay in place. Industry loves regulation!

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

How about a flat fee from every citizen? Say $4000 a year

geodrome, that flat tax idea comes around every once in a while, and it is indeed attractive at first glance. It's pretty easy to find information about progressive taxes and the relative burdens on rich versus poor, I assume a smart person like you is aware of it, no need to go over that stuff here.

What might be worth mentioning is how a person in the top 1% uses far more government services than a low paid wage earner.
If a person owns a business requiring heavy trucks, they tear up highways much faster than Joe six pack. Rich people who own private aircraft use those small county airports, your waiter doesn't ever set foot on them. The Coast Guard spends millions to provide off shore rescue services to people who own ocean going boats and yachts; the garbage man doesn't have a boat. A person who owns three homes gets protection from three different police departments.

When you think it through, rich folks just use more government services than a family of four with the median income of $60,000.
A flat tax is hard to justify for that reason alone.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

Untold millions are spent by the insurance industry lobby to make sure those barriers to selling health care insurance across state lines stay in place. Industry loves regulation!

Never thought of it that way. Your turf and my turf.

[geodrome]

Re: Our Next President?

When you think it through, rich folks just use more government services than a family of four with the median income of $60,000.
A flat tax is hard to justify for that reason alone.

My proposal was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But to address your point... Any system of taxation results in a net tax-payer class and a net tax-receiver class resulting in mutual plunder among citizens.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

My proposal was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But to address your point... Any system of taxation results in a net tax-payer class and a net tax-receiver class resulting in mutual plunder among citizens.

LOL! That may be a good catchphrase, harking back to James Carville:

"It's the plunder, Stupid!"

[shiny!]

Re: Our Next President?

I agree with JK that the best use would be to rebuild the infrastructure.

That's would create a lot of high paying jobs and be a real boost for the middle class.

Plus if we don't fix crumbling water and sewer systems, bridges, and other critical parts of the infrastructure the bill will be much higher later.

Usually when pols talk about infrastructure projects, they're talking about roads and bridges. But the electrical grid needs a lot of work. Most of all, I'd like to see a national committment (like Eisenhower's interstate highway system) to re-vamping our public water infrastructure so that water coming out of the tap is really clean.

Remember the old days when public water fountains were commonplace and people actually used them? Now everyone drinks bottled water without even thinking about it. We have charities handing plastic bottled water to homeless people in the heat of the summer, either because the water fountains aren't there anymore or because even the poorest of the poor are reluctant to drink from them.

If we could spend $$ on improving our public water supply, we could all but eliminate plastic bottled water. Think of the environmental and financial impact that would have. I'm surprised no one has picked this up as a major campaign issue.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Long Term Responsibilities for the Next President

Chris I finally found a few moments to read your post carefully. Your central points are unarguable.
Sadly, changes as sweeping as those take generations to accomplish. I like the term "boiling the ocean".
I prefer to look at the first small step.

Someone has to define the long term aiming points; if you do not have a map of where you are going, the chances of arrival are very slim indeed. Again, by making a point of defining what is wrong, from that point onwards, the people involved also have a recognition that they cannot continue without accepting the ongoing consequences. As I see it, my post WAS that first small step.

[DSpencer]

Re: Our Next President?

Usually when pols talk about infrastructure projects, they're talking about roads and bridges. But the electrical grid needs a lot of work. Most of all, I'd like to see a national committment (like Eisenhower's interstate highway system) to re-vamping our public water infrastructure so that water coming out of the tap is really clean.

Remember the old days when public water fountains were commonplace and people actually used them? Now everyone drinks bottled water without even thinking about it. We have charities handing plastic bottled water to homeless people in the heat of the summer, either because the water fountains aren't there anymore or because even the poorest of the poor are reluctant to drink from them.

If we could spend $$ on improving our public water supply, we could all but eliminate plastic bottled water. Think of the environmental and financial impact that would have. I'm surprised no one has picked this up as a major campaign issue.

Practical issues do not get people whipped into a frenzy like the divisive politics that dominate the discussion. Who cares about clean water? Which public bathrooms people can use is a much more important issue...

[DSpencer]

Re: Our Next President?

income tax taxes income. wealth/property tax taxes wealth. those 2 things may be very different and one doesn't substitute for the other. a very wealthy person, e.g., might generate very high income solely from tax-free bonds. this takes a lot of wealth.

also they have different political valences.

I understand what you're saying. But what is the goal in progressive taxation? Do we really object to people earning too much money or having too much money? If it's the latter, then why not just get rid of the income tax and only tax wealth? Or stop offering tax-free bonds and categorize all income the same so that if you earn returns on your wealth they are all taxed. Or tax spending through a higher sales tax.

I just have a hard time believing that achieving a specific tax goal for society requires having a small tax on basically everything.

The tax code is just insane. Here's a little anecdote:

My company had a sales tax audit a few years ago. One of the findings was that our vendor for coffee and tea wasn't collecting sales tax. Strangely, in Ohio at least, even though the vendor is required to collect the sales tax, it's still the customer who owes it if it's not collected. So they had to go back through our invoices to determine what we owed. Sounds simple enough, but not quite that simple.

Food isn't taxed in Ohio. Well, it is taxed if you dine-in at a restaurant, but carry-out and grocery is not taxed. So why do we owe taxes? Aren't coffee and tea considered food? Yes, they are! But...only sometimes. Bottled/canned coffee, without milk (or milk substitute), is not food. But if you add milk, now it is food. But a CUP of coffee IS food, even without milk. Unless, it's artificially sweetened, then it's not food. Unless it also contains milk, then it is food.

You can serve a customer a cup of coffee and it's not taxable. You can provide them with sugar and it's still not taxable. If you add the sugar for them, now you've created a soft drink which is always taxable. If you then add some milk, you've turned the soft drink back into food and it's no longer taxable.

So they had to go through every invoice, line by line, to determine whether 10 pods of hazelnut or whatever contained sweetener and/or milk and then assess the tax accordingly.

I'd love to hear the precise social purpose achieved by taxing those who drink their coffee with sugar, but not those who drink it black or those who drink it with cream and sugar. I'd also like to understand how long I could survive drinking only a "food" such as black coffee vs a "non-food" such as a juice drink containing less than 50% juice.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Our Next President?

...I'd love to hear the precise social purpose achieved by taxing those who drink their coffee with sugar, but not those who drink it black or those who drink it with cream and sugar. I'd also like to understand how long I could survive drinking only a "food" such as black coffee vs a "non-food" such as a juice drink containing less than 50% juice.

Those distinctions have a historical basis. When sales taxes were first introduced, food was not taxed. Over the years skirmishes broke out, with tax authorities claiming candy bars or soda pop are not basic food, but M&M Mars and Coca Cola saying they are indeed. So we end up with page after page of distinctions between taxable food and tax exempt food, each one the result of a tax code skirmish. The same skirmishes break out over what a poor person can buy with their food stamps. People scream if they see someone buying a steak or some shrimp with food stamps.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

Those distinctions have a historical basis. When sales taxes were first introduced, food was not taxed. Over the years skirmishes broke out, with tax authorities claiming candy bars or soda pop are not basic food, but M&M Mars and Coca Cola saying they are indeed. So we end up with page after page of distinctions between taxable food and tax exempt food, each one the result of a tax code skirmish. The same skirmishes break out over what a poor person can buy with their food stamps. People scream if they see someone buying a steak or some shrimp with food stamps.

More than that, especially with states, everybody wants to tax "the other guy." Lots of places where "in state" tolls are $0.50, out of state are $4.00 or something, based on the address of a transponder. The whole idea of hotel and 'prepared meal' tax is that you're getting people from out of state to pay it. Same idea as the border stores and the all the rest. Since this type of thing is almost always popular, it flies through. People don't just scream if they see someone buying steak with food stamps. They scream at the idea that eating outside the home is ever necessary at all. Crank up the gambling revenue and cigarette excise while you're at it. We must take full advantage of the misery of addiction. They deserve maximum punishment anyways. Slobs. Sinners. Idiots. We must do everything we can to make them more miserable. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Would anyone like another corporate tax cut? How about a few billion on us? You want Kelo's little pink house? Nothing's good enough for our virtuous overlords. Nothing's bad enough for their wretched underlings. Calvinism reconstructed is wonderful. All the freedom of 5-points wealth worship, none of the responsibility of creating a shining city on a hill.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

Practical issues do not get people whipped into a frenzy like the divisive politics that dominate the discussion. Who cares about clean water? Which public bathrooms people can use is a much more important issue...

The problem is last-mile. City can do more damage by ripping out lead pipes and updating infrastructure. Housing pipes that connect to the street mains in old neighborhoods are often lead. If the house is owned by broke people, they can't afford to redo that part. And two different metals together = battery = much worse lead leeching. Worse? Landlords have zero incentive to upgrade the pipes. They don't drink the water. Why blow thousands to make it clean?

This problem is pervasive. It's a problem for EV adoption. It's a problem for solar adoption. It's a problem for even basic insulation and efficiency. It's a problem for any updating of residential infrastructure whatsoever. 100 years ago, government sent guys around, and they did real work on real properties to update them, electrify them, connect them to water and sewer systems, etc. Now government only offers tax incentives. If we did electrification in the USA like we're doing 21st century stuff, a good chunk of the country still would be living in the dark. The last mile's always hard. But it's impossible to do with just markets and tax incentives.

I think it's short-sighted too. For the few extra million short term it'd cost a city to do it, image how much you'd save on the back end social services from the lead poisoning. Ditto on overall electric costs if you just went around insulating everything, especially at peak. It's basic bread and butter stuff. But somebody might get something for free. So it's verboten under neoliberal orthodoxy.

[peakishmael]

Re: Our Next President?

My proposal was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But to address your point... Any system of taxation results in a net tax-payer class and a net tax-receiver class resulting in mutual plunder among citizens.

Seems unnecessarily cynical. The point of taxation in general is to enable purchase of public goods, for which we are (as a group) better off. It isn't necessarily zero sum. And as far as I can tell it isn't easy to calculate who the "net receivers" are either. Seems one could argue that the ultra-wealthy benefit far more from both basic infrastructure and the military, for instance, in that their exorbitant incomes might not be possible without those services.

[jk]

Re: Our Next President?

I understand what you're saying. But what is the goal in progressive taxation? Do we really object to people earning too much money or having too much money? If it's the latter, then why not just get rid of the income tax and only tax wealth? Or stop offering tax-free bonds and categorize all income the same so that if you earn returns on your wealth they are all taxed. Or tax spending through a higher sales tax.

I just have a hard time believing that achieving a specific tax goal for society requires having a small tax on basically everything.

The tax code is just insane. Here's a little anecdote:

My company had a sales tax audit a few years ago. One of the findings was that our vendor for coffee and tea wasn't collecting sales tax. Strangely, in Ohio at least, even though the vendor is required to collect the sales tax, it's still the customer who owes it if it's not collected. So they had to go back through our invoices to determine what we owed. Sounds simple enough, but not quite that simple.

Food isn't taxed in Ohio. Well, it is taxed if you dine-in at a restaurant, but carry-out and grocery is not taxed. So why do we owe taxes? Aren't coffee and tea considered food? Yes, they are! But...only sometimes. Bottled/canned coffee, without milk (or milk substitute), is not food. But if you add milk, now it is food. But a CUP of coffee IS food, even without milk. Unless, it's artificially sweetened, then it's not food. Unless it also contains milk, then it is food.

You can serve a customer a cup of coffee and it's not taxable. You can provide them with sugar and it's still not taxable. If you add the sugar for them, now you've created a soft drink which is always taxable. If you then add some milk, you've turned the soft drink back into food and it's no longer taxable.

So they had to go through every invoice, line by line, to determine whether 10 pods of hazelnut or whatever contained sweetener and/or milk and then assess the tax accordingly.

I'd love to hear the precise social purpose achieved by taxing those who drink their coffee with sugar, but not those who drink it black or those who drink it with cream and sugar. I'd also like to understand how long I could survive drinking only a "food" such as black coffee vs a "non-food" such as a juice drink containing less than 50% juice.

lol. loved the anecdote.

amused but disheartened by the idea of state employees spending hours going through your invoices to make these penny level determinations.