10 ms·

I think that a major component of Norquist's thinking is that the more painful people find taxes (including the process of calculating them) the more they'll su

by jkaptur 10y ago

I think that a major component of Norquist's thinking is that the more painful people find taxes (including the process of calculating them) the more they'll support his agenda of "a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fnordsensei 10y ago
Right! We can't make the government less awful, because happy people might not show us the support we need for our cause to make the government less awful.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  it is not about the government being objectively awful, it is about the government regulating. A great deal of the tax code is about giving certain groups tax breaks while preventing other people from using those to create loopholes to avoid taxes. The conservative tax lobbyists actually want to reduce the effectiveness of taxation not its complexity.
  - kakapupu 10y ago
    > it is not about the government being objectively awful, it is about the government regulating. Well, the government is no more awful than any other Mafia. Think about it. If you don't pay protection money / taxes, you get kneecaps busted / imprisoned. Neither is something you want to happen, so you pay up. Government is essentially just a vehicle for exploiting people on a massive scale. Your average mafia couldn't possibly pull off extorting 300 million people, but a government can and does, because people believe it's necessary "for the common good".
- ksdale 10y ago
  While I completely agree that the incentives seem absurd on their face, a counterpoint I have is that while I worked in a CPA office for several years, I came to realize that a lot of people really have no idea how much they pay in taxes. Many people seem genuinely grateful to have received a refund, not realizing that it was money previously removed from their paychecks. I have no idea what the correct policy would be, but I think a lot of people would feel very differently if they had to write a check for their taxes every time they received a paycheck instead of not thinking about it for 12 months and then getting a refund (which makes them feel like the government is doing them a favor). I'm not sure we can just dismiss out of hand the idea that the way people interact with their government affects their opinions on policy. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say we should make filing taxes painful, I'd personally just as soon never have to file a tax return, even if that meant my taxes weren't quite as optimized, but I know a lot about my tax situation. I guess it feels somehow more... honest (I'm not sure if that's the right word) if people viscerally feel how much they're paying in taxes, just like they feel how much they spend on utilities or groceries.
  - baudehlo 10y ago
    Most people in the U.K. (the only other place I have experience with) never file a tax return. It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing. Taxes are taken at source for all things, and if you have things outside of the norm you can tell your employer about it and they'll take care of it. Filing taxes was pretty alien to me. I'm used to it now, but it seems there are simpler ways.
    - dboreham 10y ago
      I'm familiar with the UK system too. It is possible to get closer to it in the US than most people realize. For example you can calculate the correct tax to withhold and instruct your employer's payroll people to do so. Most people seem to not know this or nor care and as a result end up over withholding and the resulting "refund". It is perfectly possible to end up with roughly correct tax withheld although you do of course still need to complete the 1040 form. But software can do that.
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        You need to be careful with this though, if you underpay throughout the year by too much, you will end up both owing and potentially have a tax penalty.
        dboreham 10y ago
        Of course. To be assessed a penalty you have to screw up pretty badly though, at least on the first try.
    - fjdlwlv 10y ago
      In the US that's called "nanny state". The US has a stronger tradition of citizens who think and act independently, even when they are working cooperatively.
    - ryanwaggoner 10y ago
      It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing. This strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long run. For any group of people who have tremendous power, not just the government.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  The goal of those types of politicians isn't to make the government less awful. Their goal is to make "the government" out to be the enemy so that the citizens don't start thinking that they can use government to actually offset the power that corporations have (through plain capital and through regulatory capture).
  - kakapupu 10y ago
    > they can use government to actually offset the power that corporations have (through plain capital and through regulatory capture) You're saying people can "use" the government to compensate for the government itself preventing competition with their cronies. Isn't that a bit of a fool's errand, even disregarding the fact that in reality we don't use the government - the government very much uses us.
    - lagadu 10y ago
      >the government very much uses us. No, we put the government and the rules it has to follow in place to ensure that it has our best interests and nothing else in mind. They are a tool we use to make sure the state is run the way we want it to be.
      - quadrangle 10y ago
        Oh come on, I'm the one defending the idea that government can be positive and serve the people. But we can't honestly suggest that this is what it IS already like it's the plain truth. It's just something it sometimes sorta is (lots of examples that live up to the ideal, lots that don't). It's a premise that is possible. Governments always have been historically run by powerful interests and not actually lived up to democratic ideals.
      - kakapupu 10y ago
        > we put the government and the rules it has to follow in place Who's "we"? It's not any living person in the world today. You may also have noticed how the government doesn't even follow its own rules?
megablast 10y ago
Which is also one of the big reasons the US is one of the few countries that don't automatically add on sales tax.
- virmundi 10y ago
  I thought that had more to do with the fractured taxing powers of the Feds, state and various local taxing authorities. For example Florida sales tax is 6%, but my county charges a 1% tax to provide sand road maintenance and paving. Pretacking is easy enough once in the stores, but somewhat odd when dealing with taxed and no taxes items.
  - spoonie 10y ago
    It's the same in Canada: different sales tax/VAT rates in different provinces on different goods. E.g. HST on clothes in Ontario but no tax at all on clothes in P.E.I. I think it does have a lot to do with the federal system. The UK is unitary, so there is a flat 20% VAT on everything taxable, which is included in the sticker price. I wonder if Australia includes tax?
    - whatusername 10y ago
      The Australian GST is national and included in the display price of all good sold. (There are some goods - eg Fresh Fruit and Vegetables - that are exempt from it -- but if GST is applicable - then it is included in the displayed price)
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      The UK has three different VAT bands: 20%, 5%, and 0%. (And then there's VAT exempt items, which aren't the same as 0%!) See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdom)#Rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdo....
joshuaheard 10y ago
I think it's also akin to the withholding tax. If people had to write a check every year, there would be outrage to the amount people are actually paying. Instead, they are grateful for the government "giving" them a tax refund!
- schoen 10y ago
  Maybe this is psychologically related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion#The_endowment_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion#The_endowment_ef...
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I don't think so. 45% of Americans pay zero income tax, even accounting for withholding.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    Yeah, zero FEDERAL income tax but most of those pay for SS, Medicare, and state taxes. Those in a lump sum vs withholdings would still be a different experience.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      That's not withholding though (as the parent referred to; withholding towards your federal income tax bill); as you mention, that's payroll taxes, which you're going to get in retirement back as entitlements. Consider what would happen if the IRS was efficient enough (through these automated tax accounting systems) to not get an interest free loan from working America for an entire year (ie dynamically modifying every pay period how much was collected in federal tax withholding based on estimated total year tax liability); the federal government would have to be more judicious about its cash flow. You'd think that's something Republicans and small government advocates could get behind. Go figure. "Fiscal conservatives" in name only. EDIT: For the pedantic: s/IRS/US Treasury/ in my comment.
      - 10y ago
losoq 10y ago
Unfortunately "starving the beast" doesn't seem to actually work. Low tax revenues don't lead to lower spending, just fiscal indiscipline. I personally would prefer a leaner federal state but it's not clear how to get there. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/starve_the_beas_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/starve_the_beas_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast#Economic_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast#Economic_anal... https://niskanencenter.org/blog/cant-make-government-smaller/ https://niskanencenter.org/blog/cant-make-government-smaller...
- RobertoG 10y ago
  When I read this "starve the beast" thing, I can't avoid to ask myself where this people think the money is coming from in the first place? In order to tax, the government have to spend before.
  - pas 10y ago
    There's this thing called the economy, full of private entities, all transacting throughout the year, creating wealth, expanding the money supply, generating a bit of inflation, and so on. Yes, the fiscal multiplier is important, but simple problems like corruption (regulatory capture and federal/state/county/municipality contracts to clients) and (very) unequal accumulation of wealth leading to serious power inequality seem more relevant today.
    - sooheon 10y ago
      Expanding the money supply and controlling inflation are precisely the things the Fed does (with monetary policy, the fiscal multiplier is only part of it). Re: corruption and concentration of wealth, I see no reason why government should have a monopoly on that. The 2007 crisis, and Enron before it, and countless other scandals, are evidence of the former being rampant in capitalism. The observation that without exogenous (non-capitalistic) forces, return on capital will always outpace economic growth (popularized by Piketty) is evidence of the latter.
mtgx 10y ago
Yeah, I don't buy it. A complex government seems the opposite of a small government (which presumably is lean as well).
arethuza 10y ago
So for ideological reasons government is regarded as bad in the US and to remind everyone of how bad it is citizens are forced to endure a painful process for paying money to the government to reinforce just how bad it is?

by jkaptur 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fnordsensei 10y ago

Right! We can't make the government less awful, because happy people might not show us the support we need for our cause to make the government less awful.

angry_octet 10y ago
it is not about the government being objectively awful, it is about the government regulating. A great deal of the tax code is about giving certain groups tax breaks while preventing other people from using those to create loopholes to avoid taxes. The conservative tax lobbyists actually want to reduce the effectiveness of taxation not its complexity.
- kakapupu 10y ago
  > it is not about the government being objectively awful, it is about the government regulating. Well, the government is no more awful than any other Mafia. Think about it. If you don't pay protection money / taxes, you get kneecaps busted / imprisoned. Neither is something you want to happen, so you pay up. Government is essentially just a vehicle for exploiting people on a massive scale. Your average mafia couldn't possibly pull off extorting 300 million people, but a government can and does, because people believe it's necessary "for the common good".
ksdale 10y ago
While I completely agree that the incentives seem absurd on their face, a counterpoint I have is that while I worked in a CPA office for several years, I came to realize that a lot of people really have no idea how much they pay in taxes. Many people seem genuinely grateful to have received a refund, not realizing that it was money previously removed from their paychecks. I have no idea what the correct policy would be, but I think a lot of people would feel very differently if they had to write a check for their taxes every time they received a paycheck instead of not thinking about it for 12 months and then getting a refund (which makes them feel like the government is doing them a favor). I'm not sure we can just dismiss out of hand the idea that the way people interact with their government affects their opinions on policy. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say we should make filing taxes painful, I'd personally just as soon never have to file a tax return, even if that meant my taxes weren't quite as optimized, but I know a lot about my tax situation. I guess it feels somehow more... honest (I'm not sure if that's the right word) if people viscerally feel how much they're paying in taxes, just like they feel how much they spend on utilities or groceries.
- baudehlo 10y ago
  Most people in the U.K. (the only other place I have experience with) never file a tax return. It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing. Taxes are taken at source for all things, and if you have things outside of the norm you can tell your employer about it and they'll take care of it. Filing taxes was pretty alien to me. I'm used to it now, but it seems there are simpler ways.
  - dboreham 10y ago
    I'm familiar with the UK system too. It is possible to get closer to it in the US than most people realize. For example you can calculate the correct tax to withhold and instruct your employer's payroll people to do so. Most people seem to not know this or nor care and as a result end up over withholding and the resulting "refund". It is perfectly possible to end up with roughly correct tax withheld although you do of course still need to complete the 1040 form. But software can do that.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      You need to be careful with this though, if you underpay throughout the year by too much, you will end up both owing and potentially have a tax penalty.
      - dboreham 10y ago
        Of course. To be assessed a penalty you have to screw up pretty badly though, at least on the first try.
  - fjdlwlv 10y ago
    In the US that's called "nanny state". The US has a stronger tradition of citizens who think and act independently, even when they are working cooperatively.
  - ryanwaggoner 10y ago
    It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing. This strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long run. For any group of people who have tremendous power, not just the government.
quadrangle 10y ago
The goal of those types of politicians isn't to make the government less awful. Their goal is to make "the government" out to be the enemy so that the citizens don't start thinking that they can use government to actually offset the power that corporations have (through plain capital and through regulatory capture).
- kakapupu 10y ago
  > they can use government to actually offset the power that corporations have (through plain capital and through regulatory capture) You're saying people can "use" the government to compensate for the government itself preventing competition with their cronies. Isn't that a bit of a fool's errand, even disregarding the fact that in reality we don't use the government - the government very much uses us.
  - lagadu 10y ago
    >the government very much uses us. No, we put the government and the rules it has to follow in place to ensure that it has our best interests and nothing else in mind. They are a tool we use to make sure the state is run the way we want it to be.
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      Oh come on, I'm the one defending the idea that government can be positive and serve the people. But we can't honestly suggest that this is what it IS already like it's the plain truth. It's just something it sometimes sorta is (lots of examples that live up to the ideal, lots that don't). It's a premise that is possible. Governments always have been historically run by powerful interests and not actually lived up to democratic ideals.
    - kakapupu 10y ago
      > we put the government and the rules it has to follow in place Who's "we"? It's not any living person in the world today. You may also have noticed how the government doesn't even follow its own rules?

megablast 10y ago

Which is also one of the big reasons the US is one of the few countries that don't automatically add on sales tax.

virmundi 10y ago
I thought that had more to do with the fractured taxing powers of the Feds, state and various local taxing authorities. For example Florida sales tax is 6%, but my county charges a 1% tax to provide sand road maintenance and paving. Pretacking is easy enough once in the stores, but somewhat odd when dealing with taxed and no taxes items.
- spoonie 10y ago
  It's the same in Canada: different sales tax/VAT rates in different provinces on different goods. E.g. HST on clothes in Ontario but no tax at all on clothes in P.E.I. I think it does have a lot to do with the federal system. The UK is unitary, so there is a flat 20% VAT on everything taxable, which is included in the sticker price. I wonder if Australia includes tax?
  - whatusername 10y ago
    The Australian GST is national and included in the display price of all good sold. (There are some goods - eg Fresh Fruit and Vegetables - that are exempt from it -- but if GST is applicable - then it is included in the displayed price)
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    The UK has three different VAT bands: 20%, 5%, and 0%. (And then there's VAT exempt items, which aren't the same as 0%!) See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdom)#Rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_(United_Kingdo....

joshuaheard 10y ago

I think it's also akin to the withholding tax. If people had to write a check every year, there would be outrage to the amount people are actually paying. Instead, they are grateful for the government "giving" them a tax refund!

schoen 10y ago
Maybe this is psychologically related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion#The_endowment_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion#The_endowment_ef...
toomuchtodo 10y ago
I don't think so. 45% of Americans pay zero income tax, even accounting for withholding.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Yeah, zero FEDERAL income tax but most of those pay for SS, Medicare, and state taxes. Those in a lump sum vs withholdings would still be a different experience.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    That's not withholding though (as the parent referred to; withholding towards your federal income tax bill); as you mention, that's payroll taxes, which you're going to get in retirement back as entitlements. Consider what would happen if the IRS was efficient enough (through these automated tax accounting systems) to not get an interest free loan from working America for an entire year (ie dynamically modifying every pay period how much was collected in federal tax withholding based on estimated total year tax liability); the federal government would have to be more judicious about its cash flow. You'd think that's something Republicans and small government advocates could get behind. Go figure. "Fiscal conservatives" in name only. EDIT: For the pedantic: s/IRS/US Treasury/ in my comment.
    - 10y ago

losoq 10y ago

Unfortunately "starving the beast" doesn't seem to actually work. Low tax revenues don't lead to lower spending, just fiscal indiscipline. I personally would prefer a leaner federal state but it's not clear how to get there. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/starve_the_beas_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/starve_the_beas_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast#Economic_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast#Economic_anal... https://niskanencenter.org/blog/cant-make-government-smaller/ https://niskanencenter.org/blog/cant-make-government-smaller...

RobertoG 10y ago
When I read this "starve the beast" thing, I can't avoid to ask myself where this people think the money is coming from in the first place? In order to tax, the government have to spend before.
- pas 10y ago
  There's this thing called the economy, full of private entities, all transacting throughout the year, creating wealth, expanding the money supply, generating a bit of inflation, and so on. Yes, the fiscal multiplier is important, but simple problems like corruption (regulatory capture and federal/state/county/municipality contracts to clients) and (very) unequal accumulation of wealth leading to serious power inequality seem more relevant today.
  - sooheon 10y ago
    Expanding the money supply and controlling inflation are precisely the things the Fed does (with monetary policy, the fiscal multiplier is only part of it). Re: corruption and concentration of wealth, I see no reason why government should have a monopoly on that. The 2007 crisis, and Enron before it, and countless other scandals, are evidence of the former being rampant in capitalism. The observation that without exogenous (non-capitalistic) forces, return on capital will always outpace economic growth (popularized by Piketty) is evidence of the latter.

mtgx 10y ago

Yeah, I don't buy it. A complex government seems the opposite of a small government (which presumably is lean as well).

arethuza 10y ago

So for ideological reasons government is regarded as bad in the US and to remind everyone of how bad it is citizens are forced to endure a painful process for paying money to the government to reinforce just how bad it is?