Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
Ah, yes, them. Why didn't they try to get the Alien & Sedition Acts declared unconstitutional?

It's been a bit since my reading on this stuff, but wasn't the point of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that the A&S Acts WERE unconstitutional, and that state nullification was the proper remedy for the unconstitutional exercise of power attempted by the Federalists?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Your bitter tone here in the face of humor is sort of telling. Here we have a revenue neutral shift, and you're treating it as a move backwards, giving heft and weight to my theory that youse guyz really care not for the recipients of the tax largesse, or for the uses to which the bucks go, but are actually more concerned that you get to take the bucks from the people who have more than you, and that those people not get to keep what they have. It's not so much "these poor people have these needs!" to you as it is "damn you rich guyz anyway, you can't HAVE all of that!"

Strangely enough, though, if you do the math, this is making the adjustment MORE dependent upon income levels, not less, so you should have been doubley happy.

And, finally, who was calling for a draft most recently? T'wasn't the neo's, was it? And it wasn't driven so much by a love for a greater military as it was by a desire to target Others. So, Crimea River.

I think that some people tend to look at the proposal as a move backwards because the elimination of the deduction for mortgage interest is put in the proposals to fund a permanent reduction in the income accruing generally to weathy taxpayers, i.e., interest and dividends.

So, in truth, the proposals DO take away from the middle class the only real tax shelter they have, and the only means of increasing home ownership at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, in order to lower the taxes on those who make as much or more from wealth than they do working and being productive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hey now.

Not running. Me and Penske are just walking rather briskly.

Always best to do so Before They Make [You] Run...

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Your bitter tone here in the face of humor is sort of telling.

The dimwits, as exemplified by posters here like Balt and Gatti, are the ultimate in hypocratical pusswads. They want higher taxes to fund their inefficient (not so) great society social delusions and they want the evil rich to fund it, but they don't want the evil rich to have any other input on issues of policy or governance. The left is pathetic, the sooner this country breaks up into small autonomous regions and I can be rid of these marxist thugs raping my wallet on daily basis the better.

In the meantime I am going to pick up a new 9 MM this weekend for my daughter for her birthday, she's just about old enough to contribute our personal homeland defence effourts, i.e. for when these treasoners come calling at my door to steal our property and infringe on our liberty.

PTL!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No one. The Big Zip. Nada.

2.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
One of the things I have problems with is the idea of "baseline economic activity". Since neither the government nor the economic activity exist in a vacuum, the only baseline that exists is itself the result of a series of policy decisions, and cannot be divorced from them. If we have developed a bloated housing market fed by government tax breaks, and now decide to take the housing market off the tax breaks cold-turkey, we are making a decision to dramatically undercut the value of real estate around the country. Moving to "neutrality" is itself a policy decision with broad impact.

I have nothing against a shift away from some of the focused incentives, though I might lobby or get upset if we shifted from others (such as the charitable tax deduction), but am not certain I see a problem that is big enough to deal with the inevitable dislocation that would result from such a radical shift. It should, at least, be phased in over time.

The proposal is to eliminate the deduction for new home mortgages and to phase out the deduction for existing mortgages over five years.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that some people tend to look at the proposal as a move backwards because the elimination of the deduction for mortgage interest is put in the proposals to fund a permanent reduction in the income accruing generally to weathy taxpayers, i.e., interest and dividends.

So, in truth, the proposals DO take away from the middle class the only real tax shelter they have, and the only means of increasing home ownership at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, in order to lower the taxes on those who make as much or more from wealth than they do working and being productive.

Being productive? Excuse me while I blow the coffee out of my nose...

Most of the better paid of us work in jerk off gigs buttfucking regs, statutes and boilerplate... I haven't done a goddamned thing to beneg=fit humanity thru my job since my last pro bono case in 1997. The middle class is a pack of middlemen, and wwe feed off the productive, ccrossing their ts and dotting their " i"s. Hey, its a living, but don't call us all generally "prodcutive" jusst because we work. This is just some shit I do to get money to live my life. I could just as easily be a broker or a barber or a janitor. Like Ruben Carter, "Its my job, and I do it for pay, and whhen I'm done, I'd just as soon be on my way..."

Productive? Thats rich.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that some people tend to look at the proposal as a move backwards because the elimination of the deduction for mortgage interest is put in the proposals to fund a permanent reduction in the income accruing generally to weathy taxpayers, i.e., interest and dividends.

So, in truth, the proposals DO take away from the middle class the only real tax shelter they have, and the only means of increasing home ownership at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, in order to lower the taxes on those who make as much or more from wealth than they do working and being productive.

Home ownership is an illusory faux ideal. There are other investment vehicles that can be as worthwhile but for the heavty hand of paternalistic governmental favouritism. As soon as the mortgage deduction goes I am selling my house, renting the same or bigger for less than my mortgage interest currently and putting my equity into a swath of acreage in the hinterland, mortgage free, where I can set up my own nation-state, free of the oppressive forces of your leftist thugs, and based on unfettered Second and First Amendment principles and as well as the Universal Moral Code.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
The same logic labels attempts to return Constitutional law to a bare reading of the language of the Constitution as "judicial activism." I think you parse too deeply when you describe a removal of social engineering-driven tax treatments as social engineering themselves. Returning things to an earlier status will have an effect, but if it brings us back to a less engineering-driven environment, I think using that label is illogical.

Except that, once again, the "engineering" isn't being removed; it's just a benefit shift. Witness the lower rate on dividends and interest and the lowering of the top rate by two percent under one of the two proposals.

A true elimination of the social engineering would result in a truly flat tax. One rate applied across the board to all accessions to wealth, from whatever source derived. The only deduction would not truly be a deduction, but a definition of trade and business income as being revenue less cost of goods sold.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Always best to do so Before They Make [You] Run...

Notwithstanding the musical reference, based on this past weekend, my speed is on the upswing, so don't count me out yet.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Being productive? Excuse me while I blow the coffee out of my nose...

Most of the better paid of us work in jerk off gigs buttfucking regs, statutes and boilerplate... I haven't done a goddamned thing to beneg=fit humanity thru my job since my last pro bono case in 1997. The middle class is a pack of middlemen, and wwe feed off the productive, ccrossing their ts and dotting their " i"s. Hey, its a living, but don't call us all generally "prodcutive" jusst because we work. This is just some shit I do to get money to live my life. I could just as easily be a broker or a barber or a janitor. Like Ruben Carter, "Its my job, and I do it for pay, and whhen I'm done, I'd just as soon be on my way..."

Productive? Thats rich.

A flat tax with no deductions of any kind or governmental incentivism would force millions of accountants and lawyers to actually have to find productive work, rather than churning paper to create and perpetuate government incented tax deferral and shelter schemes. That is the big fear here and just another boni to the whole concept of doing away with the tax code. Maybe we ship all these deadbeats to France. Bon voyage.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Except that, once again, the "engineering" isn't being removed; it's just a benefit shift. Witness the lower rate on dividends and interest and the lowering of the top rate by two percent under one of the two proposals.

A major driver of this effort is eleimination or degradation of the AMT. To the extent that AMT is another artifical move away from the flat tax, this is a removal of engineering.

A true elimination of the social engineering would result in a truly flat tax. One rate applied across the board to all accessions to wealth, from whatever source derived. The only deduction would not truly be a deduction, but a definition of trade and business income as being revenue less cost of goods sold.

I'm on board with this. Where do we sign up?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
While I happen to generally agree that the AMT is a kludge and I'm not particularly married to the mortgage interest deduction, isn't it inevitable that the code will be an exercise in "social engineering" and just a question of choosing your poison?

After all, before the income tax, we relied on some mix of tariffs, land sales, and excise taxes to finance the government, and all were hard-fought over and the subject of much debate on their social impact. The conservatives wanted to sell land dearly to preserve a cheap labor pool in the East, the radicals and democrats wanted to sell Western land cheaply to encourage upward mobility. The conservatives wanted high tariffs to protect industry, the democrats wanted lower tariffs so that good would be cheaper. I don't know how one raises enough money to support any government without having an impact on society.

The whole tax code is a kludge.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Home ownership is an illusory faux ideal. There are other investment vehicles that can be as worthwhile but for the heavty hand of paternalistic governmental favouritism. As soon as the mortgage deduction goes I am selling my house, renting the same or bigger for less than my mortgage interest currently and putting my equity into a swath of acreage in the hinterland, mortgage free, where I can set up my own nation-state, free of the oppressive forces of your leftist thugs, and based on unfettered Second and First Amendment principles and as well as the Universal Moral Code.

I got into a big fight with someone once over the Montana Freemen. He was an "America Love It Or Lump It" sort with a hot temper and I was a silly law student who thought that normal people understood the whole playing devil's advocate thing. He got really mad at me (in a restaurant) when I tried to explain to him what their position was (they don't want the benefits of our government, so they shouldn't have to pay taxes). Not saying it was right (because, you know, the Freemen are nuts), just explaining it.

I still have a fondness in my heart for the Freemen as a result of this encounter. Is it wrong to be amused when people get really really pissed off over stupid things?

My law school friend who was married to Mr Hot Temper later divorced him because he was verbally abusive to her.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Most of the better paid of us work in jerk off gigs buttfucking regs, statutes and boilerplate... I haven't done a goddamned thing to beneg=fit humanity thru my job since my last pro bono case in 1997.

Anything that you do that further defines and sharpens our legal system - whether it be contributing to new case law, or creating more bulletproof contracts, or defining a government's powers through a taxpayor suit - whatever - is a benefit to humanity, if only because so much complex social and economic interaction is only possible when we have certainty about what rules apply. You bring civilization to the world.

In short, your ability to find blow - or cheap TV's - or flat-front slacks - is predicated upon the system of letters of credit, which is predicated upon a system of enforcement and definition, which is predicated upon people like us working to parse and define every fucking word ever used in any and every combination through history.

Now, we'll link hands and sing "We are the World . . . "