3 ms·

> They are barely competent at running the key government institutions. That's by design. In the last forty years, Reaganism has firmly taken hold of both part

by esarbe 4y ago

> They are barely competent at running the key government institutions. That's by design. In the last forty years, Reaganism has firmly taken hold of both parties, i.e. "starve the beast". This is at display again currently with the efforts of getting the IRS's budget cut - nevermind that improved collection would improve the budget. It's not about the budget - it's about who's paying the bill. Or not paying - in this case.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
The tax code is like the speed limit. If they enforced it 100% (or substantially closer to 100%) it would wind up getting changed to reflect reality and that would be counterproductive to the goals of everyone who complains it's not enforced enough. The billionaires and other people with nebulous and complicated finances would actually be the people least effected by greater enforcement because their arrangements typically are at least legal on face value whereas the average types of noncompliance are obviously in violation of the tax code so you'd be seeing 1099 people, people with side gigs and people with business income getting hit most frequently and hardest.
- esarbe 4y ago
  > If they enforced it 100% (or substantially closer to 100%) it would wind up getting changed to reflect reality That would be a good outcome. > that would be counterproductive to the goals of everyone who complains it's not enforced enough. I don't agree at all. I want transparency, not deal-cutting for special-interests behind closed doors. That's a recipe for corruption. > people with side gigs and people with business income getting hit most frequently and hardest. It's not only about enforcement, even auditing the relevant people is not happening. At it is, the IRS doesn't even have the money to audit rich people[0]. Besides; the IRS could still decide to not target anyone making less than 250K. [0] https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich
  - theironhammer 4y ago
    [dead]
- theironhammer 4y ago
  [dead]
zozbot234 4y ago
"Starve the beast" was quite successful during the 1990s, the U.S. had constant budget surpluses and was paying down debt. And it happened under a Democratic administration.
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  That was also an exceptional time where the USA was benefiting from a huge one-time windfall, i.e. the end of the Cold War and commensurate reduction of the biggest line item in the US budget (the military).
  - taylodl 4y ago
    The Cold War never resumed, so it wasn't a "one-time" windfall. It was Bush Jr.'s foolhardiness to cut taxes AND wage two wars simultaneously that eliminated the surplus and sent the deficit soaring.
    - esarbe 4y ago
      Along with both parties in congress. The tax cuts were later extended. There were very few sane minds at the time in the US.
      - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
        Yes, they came up with one of the great all-time thoughtstoppers in that time: "You're either with us, or with the terrorists".
- yucky 4y ago
  > And it happened under a Democratic administration. It was a Republican Congress though who tied Clintons hands and forced him to sign on to a balanced budget after the absolute drubbing the Democrats took in 1994 midterms, losing 50 seats in the House and control of both chambers of Congress. In the end, they found a way to work together and we benefited greatly from that era until 9/11 snapped the government back into constant growth mode.

by esarbe 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

The tax code is like the speed limit. If they enforced it 100% (or substantially closer to 100%) it would wind up getting changed to reflect reality and that would be counterproductive to the goals of everyone who complains it's not enforced enough. The billionaires and other people with nebulous and complicated finances would actually be the people least effected by greater enforcement because their arrangements typically are at least legal on face value whereas the average types of noncompliance are obviously in violation of the tax code so you'd be seeing 1099 people, people with side gigs and people with business income getting hit most frequently and hardest.

esarbe 4y ago
> If they enforced it 100% (or substantially closer to 100%) it would wind up getting changed to reflect reality That would be a good outcome. > that would be counterproductive to the goals of everyone who complains it's not enforced enough. I don't agree at all. I want transparency, not deal-cutting for special-interests behind closed doors. That's a recipe for corruption. > people with side gigs and people with business income getting hit most frequently and hardest. It's not only about enforcement, even auditing the relevant people is not happening. At it is, the IRS doesn't even have the money to audit rich people[0]. Besides; the IRS could still decide to not target anyone making less than 250K. [0] https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich
- theironhammer 4y ago
  [dead]
theironhammer 4y ago
[dead]

zozbot234 4y ago

"Starve the beast" was quite successful during the 1990s, the U.S. had constant budget surpluses and was paying down debt. And it happened under a Democratic administration.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
That was also an exceptional time where the USA was benefiting from a huge one-time windfall, i.e. the end of the Cold War and commensurate reduction of the biggest line item in the US budget (the military).
- taylodl 4y ago
  The Cold War never resumed, so it wasn't a "one-time" windfall. It was Bush Jr.'s foolhardiness to cut taxes AND wage two wars simultaneously that eliminated the surplus and sent the deficit soaring.
  - esarbe 4y ago
    Along with both parties in congress. The tax cuts were later extended. There were very few sane minds at the time in the US.
    - ElfinTrousers 4y ago
      Yes, they came up with one of the great all-time thoughtstoppers in that time: "You're either with us, or with the terrorists".
yucky 4y ago
> And it happened under a Democratic administration. It was a Republican Congress though who tied Clintons hands and forced him to sign on to a balanced budget after the absolute drubbing the Democrats took in 1994 midterms, losing 50 seats in the House and control of both chambers of Congress. In the end, they found a way to work together and we benefited greatly from that era until 9/11 snapped the government back into constant growth mode.