Tax Bill about to Pass (actually matters)

[Randy]

It's 2018 bro.

Yeesh, you're right. That last thing I want to do is put more time back on the clock.

 

[Randy]

That was a regrettably vague statement on my part. I was trying to say something halfway clever about the political philosophies of the forum in general manifesting against another political philosophy with which two forum users seem to identify, yet probably don't really represent, but I got really lazy with that and it came out totally wrong. Sorry about that.

NP. Things come across a lot different in typing sometimes. I get your point better now and I hope my last post (the longer one) clarifies that understanding.

 

[Drew]

Okay, so, anarchist confirmed then. Moving on.

No shit, right?

I think he's referring to the personal federal income tax during peacetime, and by fully implemented, he means fully implemented without the courts knocking it down.

I'm kind of shocked that this would be considered a rational demand, as worded. It'd be like reading the ten commandments in the Bible: "thou shalt not this and thou shalt not that, oh, and also make sure you keep the Sabbath," and Moses said "I cannot accept those rules, because it wasn't descriptive enough about what I can do."

Two things - maybe I'm being unfair by taking him at face value, but if UtF says "there was no income tax before the early 1900s," to me, that sounds like he believes there was no income tax before the 1900s. That's categorically untrue.

And, your second question, put it back in context - "I'm not an anarchist, I think there should be some limited government." "Ok, sure. What do you think that government should exist to do?" "I think it shouldn't do this, this, and this." It's a totally fair question to someone who claims they believe there should be a government and they're not actually an anarchist, because, well, I don't think it's wildly unfair to argue that anything you think should exist should exist for a reason, you know?

I don't think there's dog-piling going on, per se, so much as a broad attempt to get UtF to commit to what he actually believes in, if not anarchy. But, if this is dogpiling, it's certainly not aimed at you nor is it aimed at libertarianism.

EDIT - and just saw your apology for the vagueness there. That makes my explanation less necessary, but whatever - carry on.

 

[Drew]

Not to totally sidestep the rest of your argument but the minutae doesn't matter a whole lot when this is a large enough fallacy on it's own.

Stating the obvious but you've pointed out that a government in a world entirely different from now, 100+ years ago was able to exist without a "peacetime person income tax", which is an entirely different argument from saying it's practical in 2017. ALSO stating the obvious, they had it that way and obviously decided it was in their best interest to implement the tax; which I'm sure was a hard sell, so they must've had good reason why the current system was necessary.

Also, you're both starting to REALLY piss me off with "OMG, this is too OT, these arguments are unfair" stuff. We're actually down to talking tax in a tax thread and you're still pulling this shit. You're not the fucking moderators and you don't decide what's too far off-topic, I do and if you don't like it,don't fucking come in here.

Also, the bigger change IMO between ther 1800s and the 1900/2000s is probably the mix of taxation. In the 1800s we did have periodic income taxes levied, but we relied much more heavily on trade tarrifs, excise taxes, duty taxes, stamp taxes, etc, and other forms of taxation on economic activity. In tthe 1900s and onwards we moved from taxing activity to taxing the gains from activity, which from a pure market standpoint I'm a fair amount more comfortable with, because it discourages economic activity less than a gains-based approach to taxation (if you're taxed on the income you gain from engaging in a particular transaction, then high volume, low profit transactions still make economic sense, whereas in a transaction-based taxing structure, the tax costs of transaction quickly make the activity uneconomical. Income tax is essentially a taxation on outcomes, rather than on process, and places the highest taxes (in dollar terms) on the best outcomes, rather than the most attempts. It's a little more pro-growth than a transaction-based tax, which is what we relied on before income tax became more broadbased.

 

[bostjan]

1. So, under the new tax laws, I don't think I'll see much of a change in my income taxes, overall. I think it looks like I'll be paying a little less base tax and a little more in fees and whatnot. I don't think anyone within the USA would consider me rich by any standard, since I essentially have <1% of my income left after I pay my bills, groceries, and taxes, and I don't have a TV or any leisure expenses other than guitar picks and strings every once in awhile.

I'm curious as to how many people on this forum would be affected, but I don't want to get personal and actually ask.

2.

Well THIS is an entirely different kettle of fish than frontloading your arguments about the federal government by calling into question "peactime personal income tax" as a whole.

As far as eliminating the personal income tax from federal law - honestly, it's a hypothetical discussion at [almost] every level. No congressman would vote to nuke the tax completely, so it's just an academic discussion. I do think, from a purely mathematical perspective, the libertarian philosophy could work if enough people were behind it, but in reality, the majority of people in the USA will always demand government services, so this sort of hard-line libertarianism will never get anyone anywhere. If you want government services, you have to pay for them with taxes. I would like to think that any modern libertarian would identify and acknowledge that reality. Then again, I still voted for Gary Johnson, even though I personally think the guy would be a disaster as president (I just happened to think that every candidate that was actually on the ballot would have been a disaster for different reasons, and that the disaster Johnson would have caused would have been one that I could have been better equipped to handle).

3.

My position, I don't think our tax system is insanely, wildly out of whack. There's not much I want to do with my life that's entirely out of reach on a fair income in the current system, or like I'd be living like a king if there were no taxes at all. My biggest issue is that, for WHAT we pay, the quality of services we get in return is piss poor. I don't mind paying $10 for a cheeseburger at a decent restaurant, but I'm not going to pay $10 for a McDonald's cheeseburger. Once that comes into focus, you have a choice of deciding if the quality of the service is too low, or the tax burden for it is too high; to me, that's decided on rationally arriving at the importance of the service that's in question and objectively analyzing what's a fair level of service for all who participate.

I agree. It's not that bad. It wasn't that bad before. Maybe it is a little worse for some people now than it was before, especially those in states like NY, NJ, CA, and new england. I kind of hate to see things go in the wrong direction even when it's not that bad, though.

The government is terribly inefficient at many many things, but, to be fair, they are the most efficient option at some things. I certainly don't want to give up most government services myself. If I were the president, I would try to push for careful reforms. That is, keeping things as they are whilst trying to figure out the ideal place for things to be and then figuring out how to bridge between without causing the US to collapse before changes could take effect. I disagree with Trump most where he wants to go into things swinging without really providing the public with any logical rationale.

4.

The only difference between me and Libertarians in that regard is that I don't think the solution is slashing the budget and tax system to zero; its to audit the departments top to bottom, eliminate what's necessary to shrink some (or a lot) of them back to realistic size and place an increased focus on results and on stability.

Well, hmm, I think it's safe to say that political opinions are a sort of spectrum in several dimensions rather than a black and white right or left. I really don't think that Libertarian ideology gets that extreme, or at least I didn't think so until 2016 or so, even if it does admittedly lean more that way than any of the "other third parties."

There's freedom, and there's chaos. Personally, I define freedom recursively. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, so long as it does not limit another person's freedom. It's a bit sticky, since every freedom we have has to mould around everyone else's freedoms. An anaolgy: you can swing your arms around all you want, as long as no one else is near you. As soon as your arm's reach overlaps with another person's arm's reach, your freedom is changed a little to make sure everyone still has equal rights. I think a "libertarian" would be keen on that definition, but probably democrats and republicans would sometimes agree as well with that sort of approach.

But there are so many different kinds of "libertarians" (wikipedia) that it's maybe become a silly term to use anymore.

When it comes to specific policies, I bet that you and I would generally not differ too much.

5.

Two things - maybe I'm being unfair by taking him at face value, but if UtF says "there was no income tax before the early 1900s," to me, that sounds like he believes there was no income tax before the 1900s. That's categorically untrue.

And, your second question, put it back in context - "I'm not an anarchist, I think there should be some limited government." "Ok, sure. What do you think that government should exist to do?" "I think it shouldn't do this, this, and this." It's a totally fair question to someone who claims they believe there should be a government and they're not actually an anarchist, because, well, I don't think it's wildly unfair to argue that anything you think should exist should exist for a reason, you know?

I was putting a hell of a lot of words into another person's mouth, regrettably. The "infographic" provided after the fact pretty much served me those words I said on a plate with a little ketchup on the side to eat them.

I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, with a capital L, and since the Bob Barr era, I've forgotten, on occasion, that I've drifted far away from the party's current platform, and especially from some of the other idealists who identify with the party.

6.

I don't think there's dog-piling going on, per se, so much as a broad attempt to get UtF to commit to what he actually believes in, if not anarchy. But, if this is dogpiling, it's certainly not aimed at you nor is it aimed at libertarianism.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

No shit, right?


Two things - maybe I'm being unfair by taking him at face value, but if UtF says "there was no income tax before the early 1900s," to me, that sounds like he believes there was no income tax before the 1900s. That's categorically untrue.

And, your second question, put it back in context - "I'm not an anarchist, I think there should be some limited government." "Ok, sure. What do you think that government should exist to do?" "I think it shouldn't do this, this, and this." It's a totally fair question to someone who claims they believe there should be a government and they're not actually an anarchist, because, well, I don't think it's wildly unfair to argue that anything you think should exist should exist for a reason, you know?

I don't think there's dog-piling going on, per se, so much as a broad attempt to get UtF to commit to what he actually believes in, if not anarchy. But, if this is dogpiling, it's certainly not aimed at you nor is it aimed at libertarianism.

EDIT - and just saw your apology for the vagueness there. That makes my explanation less necessary, but whatever - carry on.

I did answer your question. You must have missed it.

 

[Drew]

I was putting a hell of a lot of words into another person's mouth, regrettably. The "infographic" provided after the fact pretty much served me those words I said on a plate with a little ketchup on the side to eat them.

I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, with a capital L, and since the Bob Barr era, I've forgotten, on occasion, that I've drifted far away from the party's current platform, and especially from some of the other idealists who identify with the party.

6.

...and this is why, while I think you're completely and utterly wrong, I'd still happily grab a beer with you if the opportunity ever presented itself.

 

[Drew]

To, ahem, go briefly back on topic, Gov. Cuomo just released his FY19 state budget, which includes 1) the creation of a new employer-based payroll tax to alleviate the impact of the state tax cap, and 2) the creation of two charitable funds New Yorkers can donate to in order to fund the state's education and health care needs, respectively, and in return can receive a state tax credit. Charitable deductions are of course still federally tax deductible.

 

[bostjan]

To, ahem, go briefly back on topic, Gov. Cuomo just released his FY19 state budget, which includes 1) the creation of a new employer-based payroll tax to alleviate the impact of the state tax cap, and 2) the creation of two charitable funds New Yorkers can donate to in order to fund the state's education and health care needs, respectively, and in return can receive a state tax credit. Charitable deductions are of course still federally tax deductible.

On topic...
California, it seems, is going to try a tax loophole where you can donate your state tax and they'll match it dollar for dollar, such that you can deduct it from your federal tax. New York has said they might do the same. It'd be a way for Blue states to get back at the TOP for raising taxes on them, but it'll probably face a court battle.

I hope Vermont follows that path as well, but knowing how VT is about taxes, they probably won't.

 

[Drew]

I hope Vermont follows that path as well, but knowing how VT is about taxes, they probably won't.

Your property taxes are high enough that this could have an outsized impact on you. I know a few other states, CA most notably, are exploring similar avenues.

Whether or not it'll withstand IRS scruitiny or legal challenge is another question, but I believe Louisiana did something similar to the "charitable donation" thing a number of years ago and the IRS signed off on it, so there's actually a reasonably clear legal precedent for that aspect.