A good "revenue enhancement" idea
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:56:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  A good "revenue enhancement" idea
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: A good "revenue enhancement" idea  (Read 3416 times)
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 11, 2011, 08:00:14 AM »

Professor Reynolds has an idea for a “revenue enhancement” which would restore a tax the nation had under FDR and Truman.

Seems like a good idea to me.

Sony pictures should be the first place visited by the tax man.

But they probably believe that like GE, taxes don’t apply to friends of Obama.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/sunday-reflection-why-gop-should-give-obama-higher-taxes-he-wants
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2011, 08:07:24 AM »

Or we could just tax the rich like sensible people and not hurt consumer demand in the middle of a recession.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,620
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2011, 08:29:33 AM »

Or we could just tax the rich like sensible people and not hurt consumer demand in the middle of a recession.

Why do you hate freedom Lief?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2011, 12:59:41 PM »

Or we could just tax the rich like sensible people and not hurt consumer demand in the middle of a recession.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2011, 01:32:07 PM »

Yes, use the tax code to punish your enemies. That is one of the reasons it's so inefficient and nonsensical from any objective economic standpoint. But I can understand why CARL would enjoy the shear "shadenfeudic" spleen vented in this article - yes I can!  Tongue
Logged
NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,687
Mexico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2011, 04:24:29 PM »

Or we could just tax the rich like sensible people and not hurt consumer demand in the middle of a recession.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2011, 06:14:22 PM »

Industry specific excise taxes are in general not a good thing.  Exceptions would be if they are intended to discourage a specific activity, or to fund related government activities.  I can't see that there is any reason to discourage movie theatres or other forms of distributing audiovisual materials.  Even if we were to use such a tax to fund cultural programs (a dubious use as I see no reason to have the federal government spending its money on the arts) a 20 percent excise tax would generate way too much for such programs.

However, it is no surprise that CARL thinks having the tax code pick winners and losers is a good idea given his prior opposition to the closing of industry-specific tax loopholes.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2011, 02:22:53 AM »

Industry specific excise taxes are in general not a good thing.  Exceptions would be if they are intended to discourage a specific activity, or to fund related government activities.  I can't see that there is any reason to discourage movie theatres or other forms of distributing audiovisual materials.  Even if we were to use such a tax to fund cultural programs (a dubious use as I see no reason to have the federal government spending its money on the arts) a 20 percent excise tax would generate way too much for such programs.

However, it is no surprise that CARL thinks having the tax code pick winners and losers is a good idea given his prior opposition to the closing of industry-specific tax loopholes.

It is no surprise the Ernest both disagrees with the point I made (well, he disagrees with just about everything I post) and thinks that more and higher taxes are good ideas, unless the taxes fall on industries which want to increase taxes on others.

Its also interesting to note that he makes an unfounded allegation of some supposed opposition on my part to closing industry-specific tax loopholes.  Cite please?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2011, 02:28:23 AM »

Yes, use the tax code to punish your enemies. That is one of the reasons it's so inefficient and nonsensical from any objective economic standpoint. But I can understand why CARL would enjoy the shear "shadenfeudic" spleen vented in this article - yes I can!  Tongue

Hmm.

You continue to assert that those who urge higher taxes on others, should be exempt from higher taxes themselves.

Yes, that's Torie.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2011, 11:23:47 AM »

Its also interesting to note that he makes an unfounded allegation of some supposed opposition on my part to closing industry-specific tax loopholes.  Cite please?

I was under the impression that you supported the Nyquist position that the debt-ceiling package contain only spending cuts and no increase in tax revenues via the closing of tax loopholes.  If you do support for eliminating tax loopholes then name some tax loopholes you support eliminating.  That would be much easier than trudging through your posts for something I'm doubtful I would find in your posting history.  All you need to do to prove me wrong is list any tax loopholes you've supported eliminating.

Or are you going to chicken out as you've done with spending cuts when you've said you support eliminating the deficit with spending cuts while at the same time refusing to specify which spending cuts you would make to get us even a tenth of the way to that goal.

Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2011, 12:26:54 PM »

Yes, use the tax code to punish your enemies. That is one of the reasons it's so inefficient and nonsensical from any objective economic standpoint. But I can understand why CARL would enjoy the shear "shadenfeudic" spleen vented in this article - yes I can!  Tongue

Hmm.

You continue to assert that those who urge higher taxes on others, should be exempt from higher taxes themselves.

Yes, that's Torie.

...so, you want to punitively tax the entertainment industry because of the political leanings that it's perceived as having? Is there something I'm missing here?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,250
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2011, 10:39:41 PM »

Or we could just tax the rich like sensible people and not hurt consumer demand in the middle of a recession.
Logged
specific_name
generic_name
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2011, 11:03:47 PM »

I'm sure this all makes sense in mind of Carl, since the Right's political constituency is the rich (which we on left insist upon taxing), meanwhile due to the left's worship of Hollywood we would change our tune if the "leftists" were taxed. At least this idea of his had nothing to do with immigration, which I was almost sure it would have before clicking on the thread.      
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2011, 11:49:05 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2011, 11:51:53 PM by King Phil »

Interesting that CARL would prefer a complex authoritarian government system cherrypicking companies that go against their interests, and then intruding with job killing taxes, over a simple, straightforward and unbias income tax code.  It's a funny world we live in.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2011, 11:10:46 AM »

I'm sure this all makes sense in mind of Carl, since the Right's political constituency is the rich (which we on left insist upon taxing), meanwhile due to the left's worship of Hollywood we would change our tune if the "leftists" were taxed. At least this idea of his had nothing to do with immigration, which I was almost sure it would have before clicking on the thread.      

You REALLY don't understand!

First, the tax which Prof. Reynolds (and I) suggest be reimplemented was in existance under FDR and Truman.

Second, the studio system in the American film industry has devised a 'accounting' system whereby by they avoid having taxable profits. 

Third, it seems to me that those who advocate higher taxes should have to themselves pay taxes.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2011, 11:13:54 AM »

Interesting that CARL would prefer a complex authoritarian government system cherrypicking companies that go against their interests, and then intruding with job killing taxes, over a simple, straightforward and unbias income tax code.  It's a funny world we live in.

First, its nice to see that you understand tghat taxes can kill jobs.

Second, as I have previously noted, the American film industry has devised accounting systems which allow them to avoid having taxable income (which seems to me is not "striaghtforward" nor 'unbiased.')

Third, the tax existed under what I guess you would call "authoritarian' Presidents like FDR and Truman.

Yes, you are very funny.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2011, 11:45:01 AM »

But you're not advocating something that corrects for a bias. You're just advocating swinging in the direction of another bias.

I say this as somebody who actually supports forms of Pigouvian consumption tax: This idea is not, in your case, motivated by any desire to raise revenue at all, at least not for its own sake. You're advocating this as a form of social engineering. There's nothing wrong with that--taxes can be used for both of those things--but trying to phrase it in ways like 'people who advocate for higher taxes should pay higher taxes' (as if this was about economic justice) is ridiculous. You seem to be using a synecdoche as a basis for policy proposals. You could just as easily eliminate the accounting gimmicks that you mention without imposing a new (or very old) tax, but I guess there's an aversion to eliminating loopholes within the Republican Party these days. I'm not saying that such aversion would be a stated reason for this proposal, but it shapes the narrative, and perception shapes reality in politics as in almost no other field except possibly religion and advertising (both of which are related to politics).

I'm not familiar with how the movie industry worked in the days when something like this existed under FDR and Truman, but I would hazard a guess that it was somewhat different back then, as was the economy in general considering we had just come out of a state of total war against three aggressive empires at once.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2011, 11:54:41 AM »

But you're not advocating something that corrects for a bias. You're just advocating swinging in the direction of another bias.

I say this as somebody who actually supports forms of Pigouvian consumption tax: This idea is not, in your case, motivated by any desire to raise revenue at all, at least not for its own sake. You're advocating this as a form of social engineering. There's nothing wrong with that--taxes can be used for both of those things--but trying to phrase it in ways like 'people who advocate for higher taxes should pay higher taxes' (as if this was about economic justice) is ridiculous. You seem to be using a synecdoche as a basis for policy proposals. You could just as easily eliminate the accounting gimmicks that you mention without imposing a new (or very old) tax, but I guess there's an aversion to eliminating loopholes within the Republican Party these days. I'm not saying that such aversion would be a stated reason for this proposal, but it shapes the narrative, and perception shapes reality in politics as in almost no other field except possibly religion and advertising (both of which are related to politics).

I'm not familiar with how the movie industry worked in the days when something like this existed under FDR and Truman, but I would hazard a guess that it was somewhat different back then, as was the economy in general considering we had just come out of a state of total war against three aggressive empires at once.

Nathan,

Again, you simply do not understand.

Through essentially fraudulent accounting, the American film industry has essentially made itself free from corporate (and individual) income taxes.

By imposing what is essentially an excise tax (we have those on gasoline), we will getting revenue for the government which would not be achieved unde the income taxes.

Next, you changed my statement about people who advocate for higher taxes should pay HIGHER taxes.  What I said was that those who advocate tax increases should pay the same taxes as anyone else.

Now, an excise tax is one method.

Another method would be a real Alternative Minimum Tax.

Remember how GE got away with billions in revenue and almost no taxes?

It seems that friends of Obama don't have to live under the same laws as the rest of us.

So, lets use something that worked under FDR and Truman.

Oh, and BTW, the tax existed befor World War 2.

P.S. - FDR enforced anti-trust laws, including on the film industry (this was before WW 2).

Would like to see anti-trust laws enforced against megabanks.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2011, 12:04:51 PM »

You want a good "revenue enhancement" idea?

Kill Congress.

No, seriously.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2011, 12:07:03 PM »

All right, I stand corrected on several aspects of this, though I still think the excise tax is a bad idea and would support the AMT more (as indeed I would on the banks and car companies and everybody else).

I misread your statement about people advocating for higher taxes. Sorry.

I agree with you about antitrust enforcement, with the addition that I'd like to see much, much stronger laws against collusion (which can very easily create trusts in all but name) as well.

So I guess my main concern with this is that I really think the excise aspect doesn't work as well as an AMT (which, again, should be applied across the board, not just to a specific industry).
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2011, 12:24:21 PM »
« Edited: August 15, 2011, 12:27:52 PM by CARLHAYDEN »

All right, I stand corrected on several aspects of this, though I still think the excise tax is a bad idea and would support the AMT more (as indeed I would on the banks and car companies and everybody else).

I misread your statement about people advocating for higher taxes. Sorry.

I agree with you about antitrust enforcement, with the addition that I'd like to see much, much stronger laws against collusion (which can very easily create trusts in all but name) as well.

So I guess my main concern with this is that I really think the excise aspect doesn't work as well as an AMT (which, again, should be applied across the board, not just to a specific industry).

The problem is the corporate income taxes are constantly being finagled to create preferences.

Did you know that Porkulus created the very preference for non-commerical jet aircraft that Obama supported in 2009 and railed against this year, and which I opposed then and now?

Oh, and I am looking for 'revenue enhancements' which would not seriously endanger the economy, but give Obama his 'pound of flesh.' 
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2011, 04:11:00 PM »

was I the only one to think CARL was going to propose a deportation tax on illegals?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2011, 04:13:03 PM »

was I the only one to think CARL was going to propose a deportation tax on illegals?

No. No you weren't.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2011, 04:47:37 PM »

was I the only one to think CARL was going to propose a deportation tax on illegals?

I didn't.  I can't see CARL ever admitting that immigrants could ever be an economic benefit under any circumstances whatsoever.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2011, 04:57:51 PM »

was I the only one to think CARL was going to propose a deportation tax on illegals?

Why bother with something which cannot generate revenue, if that is the alleged purpose?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.