7 ms·

We're sorry the answer to "why can't we have nice things" wasn't [political party], it was lobbyists. Lobbyists is the answer to, "why can't we have nice things

We're sorry the answer to "why can't we have nice things" wasn't [political party], it was lobbyists. Lobbyists is the answer to, "why can't we have nice things"!

minikites 6y ago
It's both.
- grayhatter 6y ago
  Some people think UBI is a good idea, some bad. It's probably fair to say it's both. Simple, easy, and free tax submission is pretty universally believed to be a good thing. Except from lobbyists... that's what I meant to convey. There was also a subtle comment about Us vs Them politically being harmful, where Us vs Them (lobbyists) is likely helpful.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    Let me add to this. The process of legislation has gotten too big and complicated. Congress is passing fewer, larger bills, that include hundreds of small things that get passed without review or agreement, because there is an overriding interest in getting the big things done. Lobbyists don't need to buy a majority of votes, just find a couple people who may already be aligned them, who are willing to continually try to attach changes to bills.
  - nineplay 6y ago
    There is a counter-argument, though I'll leave it's plausibility up to the reader. There are a lot of deductions a taxpayer can use that the IRS doesn't know about. Charity donations are probably the most common, but also business expenses and medical expenses. Teachers who spend their own money to buy class supplies could and should be able to submit those receipts and get a deduction. That can't be easily simplified. The IRS could eliminate those deductions which would make a lot of people unhappy, or there could be some kind of complete retail overhaul where a teacher would be able to tag items as 'deductions' at the time of purchase, and the vendor would send all those tags to the IRS. The IRS could just send out bills assuming no deductions, and teachers could then add supplemental information on business expense, but ( the argument goes ) teachers might not know they can, or they might not feel it's worth their effort, and so the end result is that a lot of taxpayers overpay. Disclaimer - I have worked on tax software, but I wouldn't shed any tears if the industry went down. I'm relaying opinions I've gotten from coworkers at the time.
    - ska 6y ago
      I think they meant "simple" as in the filing process, not the tax code. Agree tax codes get complicated for good as well as bad reasons. It could clearly be simplified, but only so much. A turbo-tax like interface that covered say, 80% of the working public perfectly well and was free or really cheap is certainly in the realm of possibility.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      > Teachers who spend their own money to buy class supplies could and should be able to submit those receipts and get a deduction. No, they shouldn’t. The class supplies should be paid for by the government, not the teacher. Deductions need to be completely removed, and replaced with cash. Government should have to account for whatever it wants to incentivize. Also, I think few teachers probably get past the standard deduction amounts in order to make sense for them to itemize everything in order to get a deduction for classroom supplies.
      - nineplay 6y ago
        I think you are right, my point more that until we have revamped our school systems so that teachers do not have to purchase extra expenses, the tax code remains unfortunately complicated. A lot of the blame goes ( justifiably ) at private companies and their lobbyists, but even without these vested interests there's a lot of complexity that cannot be easily removed
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        >A lot of the blame goes ( justifiably ) at private companies and their lobbyists, but even without these vested interests there's a lot of complexity that cannot be easily removed There's nothing logistically difficult about removing the complexity of deductions/exemptions/credits, it's a few sentences typed into a law voted in by the legislature. The difficult is all in the politics since costs of various subsidies and incentives granted via deductions/exemptions/credits become transparent and part of the government budget.
ProAm 6y ago
Lobbyists and Political Party refers to the essentially same thing.
qnk 6y ago
Honest question, how is lobbying different from bribery? Lobbyists go to Washington, spend fortunes on taking lawmakers to fancy dinners and then get away with what they want. Maybe I don't understand the process and am oversimplifying it, but that's how I see it.
- grayhatter 6y ago
  That stuff is all just part of the game. The real issue with lobbyists is they appear to subject matter experts to the politicians. politicians who are not subject matter experts at almost anything generally find themselves believing what lobbyists say. The fact that they're whined and dined and made their time getting lectured enjoyable isn't really the problem so much as they are only getting half truths. The article has a perfect example where politicians say that it won't tie the hands of the IRS I'm sure they honestly believe that. The problem is that real subject matter experts tax lawyers say it will. but it doesn't matter The politicians have already believed something different. and it's much easier to con a man than convince he's been conned.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Fancy dinners, but also political donations. It is surprising how little money it takes to sway a politician in terms of donations.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  > how is lobbying different from bribery? Oh, that's easy. Lobbying is legal, bribery isn't.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    You seem to be mistaken. In the US, trading law for campaign cash is very legal.
    - deeeeplearning 6y ago
      Yes, it's called Lobbying. That was the point of my comment.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>Lobbyists is the answer to, "why can't we have nice things"! It's also the answer to why we have a lot of nice things. It's how experts can get their voices heard over popular beliefs when laws are created. Without this lobbying bills on complex issues would have little chance of being useful, since without experts lobbying for nuances those crafting the laws would not have the expertise to create good laws. Lobbying groups include electoral reform groups, small business groups, human rights groups, child healthcare groups, and on and on. The second biggest lobbiest by spending in 2019 [1] was lobbying for immigration, foreign relations, and disaster planning. These seems like reasonably good things for society. Lumping all lobbying into one simple basket is terribly shortsighted. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2019 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...
jspaetzel 6y ago
It is possible to ignore a lobbyist, it's still up to political representatives to do right by their constituents.
- johncessna 6y ago
  Politicians rarely know when there is a problem, someone has to tell them there is one. There's where a lobby group comes into play. The danger becomes which one do you believe? You can hear both sides and make a carefully thought out decisions, and then do that for the 10,000 other groups coming to you, but it's a time consuming process.
- grayhatter 6y ago
  I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. As a politician it could be very dangerous to simply ignore a lobbyist.
suifbwish 6y ago
And tell me again why lobbying is legal and people are marching to protest 100 yo statues but NOT lobbyinng? People in the US dumbfound me at how willing they are to accept public corruption while they claim the moral high ground over social issues that are trending
- gwright 6y ago
  > And tell me again why lobbying is legal The 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law [...] abridging [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is the core idea, but obviously the concept of "lobbying" embodies a lot more than just assembly and petitioning in current usage. I do think it is important to realize that we do have a right to advocate for change. Laws that regulate or curtain "lobbying" need to be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on these rights.
  - yboris 6y ago
    Giving money or paying for a dinner doesn't seem like "assembly and petitioning". It is illegal to bribe a cop. It doesn't seem like "a clever loophole" to buy the police department new equipment - it still seems like a bribe to me. There's no legal reason we can't craft law to be different than it currently is, closing these "loopholes". Campaign finance reform (publicly financing campaigns and limiting campaign spending) would be a great step.
    - gwright 6y ago
      > There's no legal reason we can't craft law to be different than it currently is, Of course. I didn't say differently. But lots of people don't understand the conceptual relationship to "lobbying" and the 1st amendment and I thought it was worth pointing that out.
- tolbish 6y ago
  You have the ability to organize protests against lobbying, if you are genuinely interested. As you noted by your statues example, protests can be quite effective.
Triv888 6y ago
by lobbyists, do you mean bribes? which should be illegal.

We're sorry the answer to "why can't we have nice things" wasn't [political party], it was lobbyists. Lobbyists is the answer to, "why can't we have nice things"!

minikites 6y ago

It's both.

grayhatter 6y ago
Some people think UBI is a good idea, some bad. It's probably fair to say it's both. Simple, easy, and free tax submission is pretty universally believed to be a good thing. Except from lobbyists... that's what I meant to convey. There was also a subtle comment about Us vs Them politically being harmful, where Us vs Them (lobbyists) is likely helpful.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  Let me add to this. The process of legislation has gotten too big and complicated. Congress is passing fewer, larger bills, that include hundreds of small things that get passed without review or agreement, because there is an overriding interest in getting the big things done. Lobbyists don't need to buy a majority of votes, just find a couple people who may already be aligned them, who are willing to continually try to attach changes to bills.
- nineplay 6y ago
  There is a counter-argument, though I'll leave it's plausibility up to the reader. There are a lot of deductions a taxpayer can use that the IRS doesn't know about. Charity donations are probably the most common, but also business expenses and medical expenses. Teachers who spend their own money to buy class supplies could and should be able to submit those receipts and get a deduction. That can't be easily simplified. The IRS could eliminate those deductions which would make a lot of people unhappy, or there could be some kind of complete retail overhaul where a teacher would be able to tag items as 'deductions' at the time of purchase, and the vendor would send all those tags to the IRS. The IRS could just send out bills assuming no deductions, and teachers could then add supplemental information on business expense, but ( the argument goes ) teachers might not know they can, or they might not feel it's worth their effort, and so the end result is that a lot of taxpayers overpay. Disclaimer - I have worked on tax software, but I wouldn't shed any tears if the industry went down. I'm relaying opinions I've gotten from coworkers at the time.
  - ska 6y ago
    I think they meant "simple" as in the filing process, not the tax code. Agree tax codes get complicated for good as well as bad reasons. It could clearly be simplified, but only so much. A turbo-tax like interface that covered say, 80% of the working public perfectly well and was free or really cheap is certainly in the realm of possibility.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > Teachers who spend their own money to buy class supplies could and should be able to submit those receipts and get a deduction. No, they shouldn’t. The class supplies should be paid for by the government, not the teacher. Deductions need to be completely removed, and replaced with cash. Government should have to account for whatever it wants to incentivize. Also, I think few teachers probably get past the standard deduction amounts in order to make sense for them to itemize everything in order to get a deduction for classroom supplies.
    - nineplay 6y ago
      I think you are right, my point more that until we have revamped our school systems so that teachers do not have to purchase extra expenses, the tax code remains unfortunately complicated. A lot of the blame goes ( justifiably ) at private companies and their lobbyists, but even without these vested interests there's a lot of complexity that cannot be easily removed
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        >A lot of the blame goes ( justifiably ) at private companies and their lobbyists, but even without these vested interests there's a lot of complexity that cannot be easily removed There's nothing logistically difficult about removing the complexity of deductions/exemptions/credits, it's a few sentences typed into a law voted in by the legislature. The difficult is all in the politics since costs of various subsidies and incentives granted via deductions/exemptions/credits become transparent and part of the government budget.

ProAm 6y ago

Lobbyists and Political Party refers to the essentially same thing.

qnk 6y ago

Honest question, how is lobbying different from bribery? Lobbyists go to Washington, spend fortunes on taking lawmakers to fancy dinners and then get away with what they want. Maybe I don't understand the process and am oversimplifying it, but that's how I see it.

grayhatter 6y ago
That stuff is all just part of the game. The real issue with lobbyists is they appear to subject matter experts to the politicians. politicians who are not subject matter experts at almost anything generally find themselves believing what lobbyists say. The fact that they're whined and dined and made their time getting lectured enjoyable isn't really the problem so much as they are only getting half truths. The article has a perfect example where politicians say that it won't tie the hands of the IRS I'm sure they honestly believe that. The problem is that real subject matter experts tax lawyers say it will. but it doesn't matter The politicians have already believed something different. and it's much easier to con a man than convince he's been conned.
Someone1234 6y ago
Fancy dinners, but also political donations. It is surprising how little money it takes to sway a politician in terms of donations.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
> how is lobbying different from bribery? Oh, that's easy. Lobbying is legal, bribery isn't.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  You seem to be mistaken. In the US, trading law for campaign cash is very legal.
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    Yes, it's called Lobbying. That was the point of my comment.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>Lobbyists is the answer to, "why can't we have nice things"! It's also the answer to why we have a lot of nice things. It's how experts can get their voices heard over popular beliefs when laws are created. Without this lobbying bills on complex issues would have little chance of being useful, since without experts lobbying for nuances those crafting the laws would not have the expertise to create good laws. Lobbying groups include electoral reform groups, small business groups, human rights groups, child healthcare groups, and on and on. The second biggest lobbiest by spending in 2019 [1] was lobbying for immigration, foreign relations, and disaster planning. These seems like reasonably good things for society. Lumping all lobbying into one simple basket is terribly shortsighted. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2019 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...

jspaetzel 6y ago

It is possible to ignore a lobbyist, it's still up to political representatives to do right by their constituents.

johncessna 6y ago
Politicians rarely know when there is a problem, someone has to tell them there is one. There's where a lobby group comes into play. The danger becomes which one do you believe? You can hear both sides and make a carefully thought out decisions, and then do that for the 10,000 other groups coming to you, but it's a time consuming process.
grayhatter 6y ago
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. As a politician it could be very dangerous to simply ignore a lobbyist.

suifbwish 6y ago

And tell me again why lobbying is legal and people are marching to protest 100 yo statues but NOT lobbyinng? People in the US dumbfound me at how willing they are to accept public corruption while they claim the moral high ground over social issues that are trending

gwright 6y ago
> And tell me again why lobbying is legal The 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law [...] abridging [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is the core idea, but obviously the concept of "lobbying" embodies a lot more than just assembly and petitioning in current usage. I do think it is important to realize that we do have a right to advocate for change. Laws that regulate or curtain "lobbying" need to be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on these rights.
- yboris 6y ago
  Giving money or paying for a dinner doesn't seem like "assembly and petitioning". It is illegal to bribe a cop. It doesn't seem like "a clever loophole" to buy the police department new equipment - it still seems like a bribe to me. There's no legal reason we can't craft law to be different than it currently is, closing these "loopholes". Campaign finance reform (publicly financing campaigns and limiting campaign spending) would be a great step.
  - gwright 6y ago
    > There's no legal reason we can't craft law to be different than it currently is, Of course. I didn't say differently. But lots of people don't understand the conceptual relationship to "lobbying" and the 1st amendment and I thought it was worth pointing that out.
tolbish 6y ago
You have the ability to organize protests against lobbying, if you are genuinely interested. As you noted by your statues example, protests can be quite effective.

Triv888 6y ago

by lobbyists, do you mean bribes? which should be illegal.