Bernie SandersFS

HFNY said:

I did receive an email back from the author and he said the chart is from the IRS.

I guess that kind of reinforces the argument that the government invariably screws up / gets things wrong. Shocking I know, wiw.

And now that page can't be found when you click the link. At least they pulled the page when they realized they were full of shit.

Sometimes there's a common sense factor.... That surely failed here.

HFNY said:

FIFY

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

I did receive an email back from the author and he said the chart is from the IRS.

I guess that kind of reinforces the argument that the government invariably screws up / gets things wrong. Shocking I know, wiw.

And now that page can't be found when you click the link. At least they pulled the page when they realized they were the IRS is full of shit.

Sometimes there's a common sense factor.... That The IRS surely failed here.

As did the people who wrote the article. Clearly everything you read on the internet is true.

HFNY said:

Of course they did because their source (the IRS) was actually wrong.

That only reinforces the idea that individuals are nimbler and faster to change / react to errors than the hulking Federal Government....but you want to raise nominal rates back to 91% as a reward for Federal incompetence?

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

FIFY

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

I did receive an email back from the author and he said the chart is from the IRS.

I guess that kind of reinforces the argument that the government invariably screws up / gets things wrong. Shocking I know, wiw.

And now that page can't be found when you click the link. At least they pulled the page when they realized they were the IRS is full of shit.

Sometimes there's a common sense factor.... That The IRS surely failed here.

As did the people who wrote the article. Clearly everything you read on the internet is true.

You talk about government competence and think corporations are competent. How cute.

Not to mention that I haven't seen a link to the IRS determination, so I can't see that as being true either.

HFNY said:

I never said that because we were talking about the individual tax code and individuals spending, saving, or investing vs. government but yes, businesses are far more competent that the Federal Government. More competition, more at stake (one's own money rather than OPM), and more challenging.

Furthering my point, the Return On Equity of State Owned Enterprises around the world pales in comparison to that of private sector businesses in their specific countries. I think most here would say ROE is a good metric for competency.

But if you really really really want to increase tax revenues from the individual tax code, you should start with the home mortgage interest deduction. People should only be able to deduct the interest they pay on their primary home and ending it for 2nd(+) homes would likely bring in close to $100 billion over 10 years:

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-23/second-home-deduction-future-depends-on-congress-using-it

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

Of course they did because their source (the IRS) was actually wrong.

That only reinforces the idea that individuals are nimbler and faster to change / react to errors than the hulking Federal Government....but you want to raise nominal rates back to 91% as a reward for Federal incompetence?

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

FIFY

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

I did receive an email back from the author and he said the chart is from the IRS.

I guess that kind of reinforces the argument that the government invariably screws up / gets things wrong. Shocking I know, wiw.

And now that page can't be found when you click the link. At least they pulled the page when they realized they were the IRS is full of shit.

Sometimes there's a common sense factor.... That The IRS surely failed here.

As did the people who wrote the article. Clearly everything you read on the internet is true.

You talk about government competence and think corporations are competent. How cute.

Not to mention that I haven't seen a link to the IRS determination, so I can't see that as being true either.

What does the profit of state owned enterprises have to do with America?

Here's the thing. I don't necessarily agree we should raise the top tax rate, I was using that as an example where you can raise rates and have zero negative effect to the economy. You do bring up a point on how I'd do it.

I'd try to simply the code and get rid of meaningless deductions. It's not only second home interest, I deduct my toy hauler interest. Then I'd clarify what you can deduct as "business expenses". I own a small business on the side, well I deduct my cell phone and a car lease through there. I know many people that have sheep and chickens so they can deduct their home and other things as a farm. That's all legal.

So I'd reduce the tax code, and try to simply some of these things. Then on corporations I'd reduce similar loopholes. Conservatives complain that our tax rate on corporations is too high. Well it's 35% but because of deductions, the average effective rate is actually under 25%.

We aren't going to tax our way out of this, those changes might be $100 to 200 billion, with a deficit of $400 billion and debt of $18 trillion. Then we need to look at the expenditure side. I think we need to cut military, and look at a lot of programs and see where we can be more efficient.

Then the main thing that will drive this home, we need consumer confidence to go up. So..... If both sides were serious about reducing the deficit, they'd actually agree on shit and promote the fact they did agree. But our news cycle is running on the 5% of both sides that but partisan bullshit. So they don't report when Congress comes together and agrees, they only report on partisan bullshit and arguments to rally the hate in their base. Both left and right wing.

HFNY said:

My point about ROE is that private businesses, whether in the USA or around the world, are inherently more competent than government. Regardless and beyond that, you make some reason points.

Due to the sequester and winding down in Afghanistan, defense spending has dropped 4 years in a row:

marketinfogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DOD_Spending.png

But what about entitlements and cash transfers? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Social Security Disability, and Welfare (including food stamps) will account for an astounding 63% of Federal Spending:

usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2016_US_fed

Despite the ACA, Medicare is still a disaster and the number of people on Social Security Disability is at a record high:

cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/images/DISABILITY-BENEFICIARIES-PHOTO_0.jpg

Also, about 50% of health care spending happens in the last 6 month's of a person's life (when they are on Medicare) so the economic multiplier (aka bang for the buck) of that government spending is god awful.

So are you also interested in reducing Federal Spending on entitlements since that's where 63% of the money is?

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

I never said that because we were talking about the individual tax code and individuals spending, saving, or investing vs. government but yes, businesses are far more competent that the Federal Government. More competition, more at stake (one's own money rather than OPM), and more challenging.

Furthering my point, the Return On Equity of State Owned Enterprises around the world pales in comparison to that of private sector businesses in their specific countries. I think most here would say ROE is a good metric for competency.

But if you really really really want to increase tax revenues from the individual tax code, you should start with the home mortgage interest deduction. People should only be able to deduct the interest they pay on their primary home and ending it for 2nd(+) homes would likely bring in close to $100 billion over 10 years:

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-23/second-home-deduction-future-depends-on-congress-using-it

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

Of course they did because their source (the IRS) was actually wrong.

That only reinforces the idea that individuals are nimbler and faster to change / react to errors than the hulking Federal Government....but you want to raise nominal rates back to 91% as a reward for Federal incompetence?

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

FIFY

2001400ex said:

HFNY said:

I did receive an email back from the author and he said the chart is from the IRS.

I guess that kind of reinforces the argument that the government invariably screws up / gets things wrong. Shocking I know, wiw.

And now that page can't be found when you click the link. At least they pulled the page when they realized they were the IRS is full of shit.

Sometimes there's a common sense factor.... That The IRS surely failed here.

As did the people who wrote the article. Clearly everything you read on the internet is true.

You talk about government competence and think corporations are competent. How cute.

Not to mention that I haven't seen a link to the IRS determination, so I can't see that as being true either.

What does the profit of state owned enterprises have to do with America?

Here's the thing. I don't necessarily agree we should raise the top tax rate, I was using that as an example where you can raise rates and have zero negative effect to the economy. You do bring up a point on how I'd do it.

I'd try to simply the code and get rid of meaningless deductions. It's not only second home interest, I deduct my toy hauler interest. Then I'd clarify what you can deduct as "business expenses". I own a small business on the side, well I deduct my cell phone and a car lease through there. I know many people that have sheep and chickens so they can deduct their home and other things as a farm. That's all legal.

So I'd reduce the tax code, and try to simply some of these things. Then on corporations I'd reduce similar loopholes. Conservatives complain that our tax rate on corporations is too high. Well it's 35% but because of deductions, the average effective rate is actually under 25%.

We aren't going to tax our way out of this, those changes might be $100 to 200 billion, with a deficit of $400 billion and debt of $18 trillion. Then we need to look at the expenditure side. I think we need to cut military, and look at a lot of programs and see where we can be more efficient.

Then the main thing that will drive this home, we need consumer confidence to go up. So..... If both sides were serious about reducing the deficit, they'd actually agree on shit and promote the fact they did agree. But our news cycle is running on the 5% of both sides that but partisan bullshit. So they don't report when Congress comes together and agrees, they only report on partisan bullshit and arguments to rally the hate in their base. Both left and right wing.

Well businesses have less benefits and pay less money, if that's what you mean by efficiency. I know several people who work at Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon, and the waste at big business is similar to government. However, you are correct that overall a business is more efficient for the dollar. But..... They also profit, right? So the additional waste in government is less than the profit made by big business.

That being said, I'm not advocating eliminating capitalism.

Yeah entitlements are going to take a hit as well. Every part of the government needs to "feel the pain". Entitlements, not counting social security and Medicare, will continue to go down as they have the last year. Social security and Medicare (not really entitlements) are having a problem cause the baby boomers. Those can be tweaked to work out better.

My bigger point, and the problem with recent conservatives, is you can't cut taxes on the wealthy and cut benefits from the poor to grow our economy. The government really just needs to make a few tweaks and both sides show compromise, and a better economy will grow us out of a lot of the problem naturally.

It's funny how both sides (well the Bernie Sanders crowd isn't on this message), but they say smaller government, but want to use government intervention to fix the problems. That right there.... Is fucked up.

sarktastic said:

You seem to like to debate many sides of phantom positions held by imaginary people.

You seem to not know much about any side.