4 ms·

My first thought was that "the system" is broken. It's too big and complicated. It's inhumane. And it's not just corporate tax law. Health care is a dumpster f

My first thought was that "the system" is broken. It's too big and complicated. It's inhumane. And it's not just corporate tax law. Health care is a dumpster fire. Lots of overly complicated modern bureaucracies. We're not as smart as we think we are.

marcinzm 6y ago
>We're not as smart as we think we are. We are, that's the problem. We find loopholes, we find edge cases, we bend rules to our benefit. Thus the bureaucracy must become ever more complicated to deal with our cleverness.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  A loophole is just a more judgemental way of describing something you're allowed to do. Most discussion around the topic of tax loopholes revolves around entirely legal deductions. When you call something a loophole, all you're saying is "you're allowed to do this, but I personally thing that you should not be allowed to do this". Our tax system is a complicated, inscrutable mess because it was designed that way, not because it needs to be that way. You and I likely take advantage of many deduction "loopholes" that were created because creating a new deduction is less politically controversial than creating a tax cut.
  - andi999 6y ago
    It also needs to be this way. Radical simple tax systems are usually considered unfair by the people. Like 10% of all you income needs to go to the state. Then people ask why do I have to pay 10% when the rich also only have to pay 10%, thats unfair. (Well you can say progression is ok, so this is then solved). Here the more difficult one: if you tax income of companies, most will close down, so you need to allow tax deductions. Then what about tax deduction for IP fees? Of course nobody wants them, but IP is a big part of the US economy (worldwide) so should IP be protected, and expenses on IP be tax deductible? After a while you probably end up with a similiar system as of today.
- lmm 6y ago
  Most of the loopholes are there by design. The solution is not to make the bureaucracy more complicated but to make it simpler, by removing most deductions and distinctions in the tax code.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    The problem may be that 330+ million people expect the politicians in Washington to do anything about these problems, while the problems just get worse and worse. And not just the tax code. They should be ashamed of health care, the complexity of the ACA, the laws allowing people to be ripped off. So many problems. I agree with you that the tax code should be simpler. But it's about money in Washington, not what people like you and I think. The tenth amendment is there for very good reasons, part of the checks and balances. Bigger is not always better.
- mikem170 6y ago
  If we were so smart (as a society) these problem would not exists. Personally I think these things are scaling problems. I'd argue that we are not smart enough to centrally organize these things for 330+ million people. Perhaps the problem is that the federal government was never designed to do so much (tenth amendment). The federal government was designed to answer to the states, not 330+ million people. Look how much better smaller countries do with this stuff. We give the "bigger is better" government too much credit. Historically "bigger is better" causes all the big problems. I'm 100% for progressive policies at the state level. I'm 100% opposed to progressive policies at the federal level. Government should be "by the people", not by some rules written by career politicians and civil servants a thousand miles away.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    You can't properly centrally organize a million people either unless they're culturally homogenous and you also use shared social pressure to enforce the "spirit" of the rules. Of course anyone not in that group is discriminated against so you better have a very homogenous society (the US doesn't anywhere at a state level).
    - mikem170 6y ago
      Do you mean that there's no difference between organizing at the state and federal levels, given the cultural variety at each of those levels? Maybe that means we should go smaller? Swiss cantons average 330k people each (8.5 million population, 26 cantons), and each canton has responsibility for their own healthcare, welfare, law enforcement, public education, tax policy, its own constitution, and can enter into treaties with other cantons and even foreign countries. Their federal government is very limited. The seem to do a pretty good job. When they have a minority problem they can't fix, they split them off a new canton. In my prior comment I had been thinking of the balance of powers between the states and the federal government. I think the tenth amendment is important, that the division of powers between the states and the federal government is just as fundamentally important as the balance of powers between the three branches within the federal government. As the federal government grows larger it grows more corrupt, dysfunctional, and disconnected from the people, as all unchecked powers tend to do. Speaking of shared culture, and this balance of power, things have devolved to the point where we argue every four years over the entire direction of the country personified in one person, the president, tribal leader and hopeful superman to 51% of the population, and cause of all that is wrong for the other 49%. We get our facts from the news, often nothing to do with our real lives and experiences. Details are nuances are ignored, there are too many anyways. The president is the team leader. Other people are stupid and liars and evil and all that matters is that your team wins. This is not going in a good direction! This isn't a problem with the voters, it's a problem with the system. My two cents :-)

marcinzm 6y ago

>We're not as smart as we think we are. We are, that's the problem. We find loopholes, we find edge cases, we bend rules to our benefit. Thus the bureaucracy must become ever more complicated to deal with our cleverness.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
A loophole is just a more judgemental way of describing something you're allowed to do. Most discussion around the topic of tax loopholes revolves around entirely legal deductions. When you call something a loophole, all you're saying is "you're allowed to do this, but I personally thing that you should not be allowed to do this". Our tax system is a complicated, inscrutable mess because it was designed that way, not because it needs to be that way. You and I likely take advantage of many deduction "loopholes" that were created because creating a new deduction is less politically controversial than creating a tax cut.
- andi999 6y ago
  It also needs to be this way. Radical simple tax systems are usually considered unfair by the people. Like 10% of all you income needs to go to the state. Then people ask why do I have to pay 10% when the rich also only have to pay 10%, thats unfair. (Well you can say progression is ok, so this is then solved). Here the more difficult one: if you tax income of companies, most will close down, so you need to allow tax deductions. Then what about tax deduction for IP fees? Of course nobody wants them, but IP is a big part of the US economy (worldwide) so should IP be protected, and expenses on IP be tax deductible? After a while you probably end up with a similiar system as of today.
lmm 6y ago
Most of the loopholes are there by design. The solution is not to make the bureaucracy more complicated but to make it simpler, by removing most deductions and distinctions in the tax code.
- mikem170 6y ago
  The problem may be that 330+ million people expect the politicians in Washington to do anything about these problems, while the problems just get worse and worse. And not just the tax code. They should be ashamed of health care, the complexity of the ACA, the laws allowing people to be ripped off. So many problems. I agree with you that the tax code should be simpler. But it's about money in Washington, not what people like you and I think. The tenth amendment is there for very good reasons, part of the checks and balances. Bigger is not always better.
mikem170 6y ago
If we were so smart (as a society) these problem would not exists. Personally I think these things are scaling problems. I'd argue that we are not smart enough to centrally organize these things for 330+ million people. Perhaps the problem is that the federal government was never designed to do so much (tenth amendment). The federal government was designed to answer to the states, not 330+ million people. Look how much better smaller countries do with this stuff. We give the "bigger is better" government too much credit. Historically "bigger is better" causes all the big problems. I'm 100% for progressive policies at the state level. I'm 100% opposed to progressive policies at the federal level. Government should be "by the people", not by some rules written by career politicians and civil servants a thousand miles away.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  You can't properly centrally organize a million people either unless they're culturally homogenous and you also use shared social pressure to enforce the "spirit" of the rules. Of course anyone not in that group is discriminated against so you better have a very homogenous society (the US doesn't anywhere at a state level).
  - mikem170 6y ago
    Do you mean that there's no difference between organizing at the state and federal levels, given the cultural variety at each of those levels? Maybe that means we should go smaller? Swiss cantons average 330k people each (8.5 million population, 26 cantons), and each canton has responsibility for their own healthcare, welfare, law enforcement, public education, tax policy, its own constitution, and can enter into treaties with other cantons and even foreign countries. Their federal government is very limited. The seem to do a pretty good job. When they have a minority problem they can't fix, they split them off a new canton. In my prior comment I had been thinking of the balance of powers between the states and the federal government. I think the tenth amendment is important, that the division of powers between the states and the federal government is just as fundamentally important as the balance of powers between the three branches within the federal government. As the federal government grows larger it grows more corrupt, dysfunctional, and disconnected from the people, as all unchecked powers tend to do. Speaking of shared culture, and this balance of power, things have devolved to the point where we argue every four years over the entire direction of the country personified in one person, the president, tribal leader and hopeful superman to 51% of the population, and cause of all that is wrong for the other 49%. We get our facts from the news, often nothing to do with our real lives and experiences. Details are nuances are ignored, there are too many anyways. The president is the team leader. Other people are stupid and liars and evil and all that matters is that your team wins. This is not going in a good direction! This isn't a problem with the voters, it's a problem with the system. My two cents :-)