Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 30, 2017, 03:38:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101318 Posts in 2372 Topics by 1088 Members
Latest Member: Michael Yon
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Tax Policy
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] Print
Author Topic: Tax Policy  (Read 120843 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #650 on: March 27, 2017, 09:52:36 AM »

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450&context=law_and_economics

Conclusions
Implementing a tax system base
d on the Brady plan will present a substantial
challenge. Many implementation problems a
rise because nothing like this has
ever been tried by a developed country, not to speak of in a country the size of the
United States. It is likely that over time, solu
tions to most issues will be found.
Given the substantial number of issues, however, it is naοve to think that the plan
can be passed into law quickly.
Some issues, such as correcting the treatment of land and inventory are
straightforward. Others
, such a
s the elimination of the regimes for pass
-through
taxation and rules for major corporate transactions, are conceptually
straightforward but will be involve more substantial changes to current law. And
others will be difficult. Among the most important and difficult issues are the
following:
•
Deferral and the collection of the capital income tax on individuals
.
•
The legality of border adjustments
 and possible design changes to
improve the odds of compliance with the GATT
.
•
The treatment of financial institutions
.
•
The treatment of businesses that consistently generate tax losses while
making economic profits.
•
Distinguishing between real and financial flows
, and making a consistent
choice to have an R
-based system (or an R+F system).
•
Transition
.
These i
ssues do not have straightforward solutions and will need careful analysis
as the legislative process moves forward.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 11:59:52 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #651 on: March 27, 2017, 10:02:14 AM »

I believe Crafty expressed an interest in this.  I don't happen to like it for a number of reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?mtrref=gregmankiw.blogspot.com&gwh=5B262B7F86320D4D9C013D0E904A212A&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 12:02:03 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39562


« Reply #652 on: March 27, 2017, 12:02:33 PM »

What don't you like?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #653 on: March 27, 2017, 05:21:56 PM »

Tax carbon ($40?) per ton.  Pay back to all, $500 per capita per year at the start.

What don't you like?

1.  I don't trust it would be implemented as proposed.  For sure we will pay in more; I don't believe for a minute we would see most or all of it back.

2. If they instead promised to use the revenues to reduce the burden of other taxes, income taxes for example, I don't believe those rates will go down or stay down either.  New taxes lead to new spending.

3. The purpose is to reduce emissions.  If it succeeds, it is a declining and unreliable source of revenue.  Yet the proposal says it will increase over time.

4. I'm not persuaded that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or that our federal government can accurately or honestly measure and assess the 'cost'.  Carbon dioxide is a trace element in the atmosphere, less than one part per thousand, and yet is an essential building block of life.  I would be far more concerned if CO2 levels were declining.

5) The revenue stream creates its own moral hazard.  People will want more and more.  The government will want more and more, from what it wants less of.

6) In compromise, I propose we tax only the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere that did not originate in the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 10:39:14 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14446


« Reply #654 on: March 27, 2017, 05:35:31 PM »

Taxes are like government programs. Once in place, they only grow.

Tax carbon ($40?) per ton.  Pay back to all, $500 per capita per year at the start.

What don't you like?

1.  I don't trust it would be implemented as proposed.  For sure we will pay in more; I don't believe for a minute we would see most or all of it back.

2. If they instead promised to use the revenues to reduce the burden of other taxes, income taxes for example, I don't believe those rates will go down or stay down either.  New taxes lead to new spending.

3. The purpose is to reduce emissions.  If it succeeds, it is a declining and unreliable source of revenue.  Yet the proposal says it will increase over time.

4. I'm not persuaded that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or that our federal government can accurately or honestly measure and assess the 'cost'.  Carbon dioxide is a trace element in the atmosphere, lees than one part per thousand, and yet is an essential building block of life.  I would be far more concerned if CO2 levels were declining.

5) The revenue stream creates its own moral hazard.  People will want more and more.  The government will want more and more, from what it wants less of.

6) In compromise, I propose we tax only the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere that did not originate in the atmosphere.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #655 on: March 27, 2017, 09:30:05 PM »

I'm with GM and Doug on this.

In fact... to me (speaking for myself), I'm fine if there are absolutely no taxes. It's been done before.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39562


« Reply #656 on: March 27, 2017, 11:26:44 PM »

As you guys probably remember, my proposal was for this sort of tax REPLACING other taxes; that said I find the politics of this proposal intriguing , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #657 on: March 28, 2017, 08:45:50 AM »

As you guys probably remember, my proposal was for this sort of tax REPLACING other taxes; that said I find the politics of this proposal intriguing , , ,

It is intriguing in the theoretical sense, to tax pollution for its social cost instead of regulating it.  A number of things don't line up on that for this IMHO.  It's not pollution.  We don't know the cost.  If we tax it enough to make it go away, which is the goal, it doesn't make a solid revenue source to pay for defense, healthcare etc. to replace other taxes.  At some price, we could switch to nuclear grid power for example, which is carbon free, and the budget crashes.

Moving from the theoretical to the political, it doesn't replace the federal income tax unless we repeal the 16th amendment.    To repeal the 16th and move to any or every kind of consumption tax as this would be passed along to the consumer, we would need 288 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and ratification in 38 states.

As GM points out, other taxes won't go away just because we have more sources of revenue.   The politics for taxing income (punitively) remains the same, no matter how much other money we can find.

MHO.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #658 on: March 28, 2017, 12:05:33 PM »

As you guys probably remember, my proposal was for this sort of tax REPLACING other taxes; that said I find the politics of this proposal intriguing , , ,

If it helps in a race to zero, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, the point that had been brought here by others, is that the government has a terrible track record on relinquishing power or money.

Doug makes a great point on the budget. I have to think that perhaps we're spending far too much anyways.

I can say, that living here, going from 100K a year to 10,000 pesos a month, I live a higher quality of life than I did there in many ways. As soon as I finish law school, some lawyers in el DF, clear a million USD a year.

The problem isn't just the budget,,, it's the price of supporting people who (you rightly elude to on another thread), will not be productive because they make more not to be in terms of welfare.

We have to find a way to quit supporting people who simply will not support themselves. It isn't heartless, it's smart.

When that happens, a high quality of life will be less expensive, and there will be fewer people breeding for cash, because they won't be being rewarded for it.

Bring back the family model, stop encouraging divorce... women receive 90% of the welfare. That has to stop. It's destroying everything and everyone... even if it's through destroying society itself.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 12:10:40 PM by DDF » Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8615


« Reply #659 on: March 28, 2017, 02:22:04 PM »

The failure of Obamacare repeal makes tax reform harder.  24 Obamacare taxes were not repealed and the coalition is badly damaged.  The bill being floated around is flawed in many ways and no one has an answer that would both succeed if passed and pass.

The blue state penalty (lose deductibility for state and local taxes, property taxes) won't pass.  The rates don't drop that far.  The 'border tax' isn't going to be understood even if it was a good idea.  The CBO won't score it accurately or dynamically.  The talking points against it will be generated by Congress's own budget office.  Guess what, tax rate cuts will benefit the people first and most who pay the highest rates.  Get over it, but they won't.  It will feed the same narrative as kicking low income people off of healthcare, with no conservative messaging to answer it.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin wants this done by August recess.  

Even if it eventually is watered down enough to pass, it will be too late in the year to make it retroactive to the first.  They can't measure what part of your income is before and after passage so the effective date has to be delayed to 2018, locking is a slowdown for this year - if it hasn't started already.

Investors and markets hate uncertainty, and uncertainty is now the law of the land.  The effect of both delayed tax rate cuts and uncertainty is to freeze decision making and delay and destroy valuable economic activity.

What will be the consequences of that?  Sustained (Obama plowhorse) growth?  Doubtful.  Growth you might expect from tax reform without tax reform?  Not a chance.  A stall or pause that feeds on itself and leads to a correction, recession or worse?  All possible.  

What happens if/when it all fails, negotiations break down on both healthcare and tax reform?  Add to that other potential problems brewing here and around the world?  I don't want to know.

Some of us wrote here in the 2012 election cycle that that was the last chance to get it right, and we didn't.  I didn't think we were writing hyperbole nor overstating the dangers.  What if we were right?

Meanwhile Washington marches on with a Crisis? What Crisis? attitude.  Ho hum, maybe we should try some tax reform over the summer, start with a completely unpassable, incomprehensible bill with no plan to sell it after screwing up healthcare and letting popularity levels of the President and Congress to drop to the thirties and the teens respectively.  

What could possibly go wrong?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:34:32 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6843


« Reply #660 on: March 28, 2017, 04:39:22 PM »

I posted this on the energy politics thread on Feb 13.  CD thought he could stomach it if other taxes were reduced to counter act it.  (not unreasonable IF libs were EVER reasonable - they never are or at least in the last 25 yrs)

That said isn't the fact that Robert Reich thinks the Baker et al plan is a good idea ALONE enough reason to be AGAINST it?

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-carbon-tax-would-give-each-family-2000-year-555065

Does anyone think a chump change bribe to people to get them to buy into what would be one of the largest tax hikes in human kind is good idea except for big Government  libs?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 04:43:36 PM by ccp » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!