The Clinton Victory Thread

[proudfootz]

We could shoot all the doctors, they're the ones whose 'services' are costing too much.

Healthcare only helps the less fit clog up things anyway.

[laklak]

Good point. Nip it in the bud. Leeches and bleeding were good enough for me da and his da before him.

[Mike_L]

...and some trepanning for the political class, starting with Hillary.

[crank]

...and some trepanning for the political class, starting with Hillary.

Tumi, this is the way to go.

[Willie71]

...and some trepanning for the political class, starting with Hillary.

I did a paper on this in 1991. Humans aren't as smart as we think we are.

[Willie71]

What has worked "so well so far" is corporate taxation. It's also been a major reason for corporations moving overseas.

Which just goes to show how much corporations care about the population: Not at all. They are just profit machines holding the population hostage under the threat that if they're taxed, they'll just move overseas. There has to be another solution than concession and letting them run the show however the fuck they want, which is what they're doing. It would be cool if it was possible to legislate such that they're not allowed to move their shit to another country to dodge taxes.

Oh wait, that IS possible, but it doesn't happen because the legislators are bought. How do we fix this? Maaaaaybe we should stop voting bought legislators into office? Nah, lets just give up and pray the mob boss will drive through town next month and throw a few coins at us.

Do you think this is true of people as well? I'm thinking back to a recent article in which some conservatives poked fun and make accusations of hypocrisy at Bernie Sanders for only paying 13% on his tax rate of a little over $200k income.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -hypocrisy

Though I think even those who were not inclined to support Bernie defended him as there being no hypocrisy for wanting to change the rules of the game while still playing by the current rules.

I don't necessarily disagree, but is that not what we do to corporations and a lot of other people who use tax havens? I'd imagine a lot liberals who stuck up for Sanders are anxious to see if any loopholes are revealed on Trump's taxes.

I don't know, I just have been kinda struck by the oddness that it seems the people who complain most about corporations avoiding taxes were liberals who were generally okay with Bernie using the code to reduce his burden.

Are you suggesting Sanders moved overseas to pay less tax, or is threatening to? You aren't suggesting he write a cheque to pay extra in taxes to what the codes say he should? That's lunacy.

[purplerat]

The point is that so long as you aren't breaking the law why should anybody pay more taxes than what is legally required of them, regardless of what type of taxes they are?

[laklak]

Precisely. I worked overseas for most of my life, and paid little if any tax. I wasn't "avoiding taxes", I was following the U.S. IRS tax code. They exclude a certain amount of your overseas income from U.S. tax, and you get a credit for any foreign taxes paid. Nothing illegal or immoral about it, they set up the rules, I was just following them. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to give them money you don't owe. But they let you do that, you know, you can always write them a check and they'll happily cash it. So if someone thinks they're not paying their "fair share" there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

There's no such thing as a tax loophole, there's just the tax code. If it allows a corporation to shelter income through an overseas subsidiary then more fool them if they don't take advantage of it. If you want them to pay more, change the tax code.

[mrjonno]

I've certainly minimised my taxes before, earning double want I earn now and paying half the tax (legal but bogus self employed own company ). I don't however think it was very moral but I'm highly suspect of people who claim to be moral anyway as they are almost always complete hypocrites.

Being realistic about humanity I never expect people to act morally but I do expect them to act legally in a functioning society because there should be enforceable penalties for not doing so.

People don't need god to be 'good' but they do need a policeman with a big threatening stick to hit them if they aren't

[OlivierK]

Precisely. I worked overseas for most of my life, and paid little if any tax. I wasn't "avoiding taxes", I was following the U.S. IRS tax code. They exclude a certain amount of your overseas income from U.S. tax, and you get a credit for any foreign taxes paid. Nothing illegal or immoral about it, they set up the rules, I was just following them. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to give them money you don't owe. But they let you do that, you know, you can always write them a check and they'll happily cash it. So if someone thinks they're not paying their "fair share" there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

There's no such thing as a tax loophole, there's just the tax code. If it allows a corporation to shelter income through an overseas subsidiary then more fool them if they don't take advantage of it. If you want them to pay more, change the tax code.

Indeed, changing the tax code is required, and will be strongly resisted by people with deep pockets and flexible morals. Hence the preceding requirement for non-purchasable politicians.

Two nitpicks, for what it's worth, with the above:

1) It's no more idiotic to pay more tax than you owe than it is to give to charity. My wife and I regularly overpay by not bothering to claim certain deductibles or benefits, and just see it as having two payoffs - an altruistic payoff that we're contributing to schools, hospitals, roads, etc and a selfish one that we're reducing our paperwork burden. I think the social goods provided by government are at least as important as those provided by most charities.

2) It's not reasonable to imply that people who think taxes should be higher are hypocrites for not voluntarily writing a cheque for extra (not saying you did this, but we're coming closer to that territory with this discussion), because the benefits of one person doing so are orders of magnitude from the effects of all being required to do so.

[crank]

It's one thing to take advantage of broadly targeted tax breaks that most can access, it's another to engineer huge tax breaks, credits, loopholes in the code through bought legislators that only benefit you or a very narrow, very wealthy, segment of the population. A lot of this is done anonymously, sometimes a single line in the code only applies to one person/entity,, and worth $tens , or $100's of millions

[purplerat]

It's one thing to take advantage of broadly targeted tax breaks that most can access, it's another to engineer huge tax breaks, credits, loopholes in the code through bought legislators that only benefit you or a very narrow, very wealthy, segment of the population. A lot of this is done anonymously, sometimes a single line in the code only applies to one person/entity,, and worth $tens , or $100's of millions

But in reality those very narrow tax breaks only account for a small if not negligible amount of lost tax revenue. The real bulk of dollars lost to tax "loopholes" comes from those enjoyed by many, many people.

[crank]

It's one thing to take advantage of broadly targeted tax breaks that most can access, it's another to engineer huge tax breaks, credits, loopholes in the code through bought legislators that only benefit you or a very narrow, very wealthy, segment of the population. A lot of this is done anonymously, sometimes a single line in the code only applies to one person/entity,, and worth $tens , or $100's of millions

But in reality those very narrow tax breaks only account for a small if not negligible amount of lost tax revenue. The real bulk of dollars lost to tax "loopholes" comes from those enjoyed by many, many people.

Not in total they don't. Depending on what you call a loophole, I'd say those for the corporations are by far the larger contribution. But that misses the point, which is whether taking tax breaks can be seen as more or less legitimate. Tax breaks for charity donations and mortgage interest rates can be seen as having some positive aim, it's very different than the self-serving tax breaks, tax credits, tax rebates that get put into the code in order for corps and the rich to enrich themselves with no positives for the country as a whole.

[purplerat]

It's one thing to take advantage of broadly targeted tax breaks that most can access, it's another to engineer huge tax breaks, credits, loopholes in the code through bought legislators that only benefit you or a very narrow, very wealthy, segment of the population. A lot of this is done anonymously, sometimes a single line in the code only applies to one person/entity,, and worth $tens , or $100's of millions

But in reality those very narrow tax breaks only account for a small if not negligible amount of lost tax revenue. The real bulk of dollars lost to tax "loopholes" comes from those enjoyed by many, many people.

Not in total they don't. Depending on what you call a loophole, I'd say those for the corporations are by far the larger contribution. But that misses the point, which is whether taking tax breaks can be seen as more or less legitimate. Tax breaks for charity donations and mortgage interest rates can be seen as having some positive aim, it's very different than the self-serving tax breaks, tax credits, tax rebates that get put into the code in order for corps and the rich to enrich themselves with no positives for the country as a whole.

I couldn't care less about moralizing over why people take certain tax breaks. If it's a legal deduction then that's about all I care about. Given how many people outright cheat on their taxes and find a moral excuse for doing so I'm not about to judge somebody who takes a legal deduction.

The tax code in the US is screwed up and should be fixed but it won't because nobody wants their deduction taken away. You can blame the big corporations all you want but when the average US citizen looks at European or Canadian tax rates on individual income they aren't going to go for that if it means they pay far more than they currently do.

[crank]

It's one thing to take advantage of broadly targeted tax breaks that most can access, it's another to engineer huge tax breaks, credits, loopholes in the code through bought legislators that only benefit you or a very narrow, very wealthy, segment of the population. A lot of this is done anonymously, sometimes a single line in the code only applies to one person/entity,, and worth $tens , or $100's of millions

But in reality those very narrow tax breaks only account for a small if not negligible amount of lost tax revenue. The real bulk of dollars lost to tax "loopholes" comes from those enjoyed by many, many people.

Not in total they don't. Depending on what you call a loophole, I'd say those for the corporations are by far the larger contribution. But that misses the point, which is whether taking tax breaks can be seen as more or less legitimate. Tax breaks for charity donations and mortgage interest rates can be seen as having some positive aim, it's very different than the self-serving tax breaks, tax credits, tax rebates that get put into the code in order for corps and the rich to enrich themselves with no positives for the country as a whole.

I couldn't care less about moralizing over why people take certain tax breaks. If it's a legal deduction then that's about all I care about. Given how many people outright cheat on their taxes and find a moral excuse for doing so I'm not about to judge somebody who takes a legal deduction.

The tax code in the US is screwed up and should be fixed but it won't because nobody wants their deduction taken away. You can blame the big corporations all you want but when the average US citizen looks at European or Canadian tax rates on individual income they aren't going to go for that if it means they pay far more than they currently do.

This is the problem, you don't distinguish between what is legal because of legitimate concerns and what is legal because politicians are bought. It means you have no problem with some of the biggest corporations paying zero taxes.

[crank]

[purplerat]

But in reality those very narrow tax breaks only account for a small if not negligible amount of lost tax revenue. The real bulk of dollars lost to tax "loopholes" comes from those enjoyed by many, many people.

Not in total they don't. Depending on what you call a loophole, I'd say those for the corporations are by far the larger contribution. But that misses the point, which is whether taking tax breaks can be seen as more or less legitimate. Tax breaks for charity donations and mortgage interest rates can be seen as having some positive aim, it's very different than the self-serving tax breaks, tax credits, tax rebates that get put into the code in order for corps and the rich to enrich themselves with no positives for the country as a whole.

I couldn't care less about moralizing over why people take certain tax breaks. If it's a legal deduction then that's about all I care about. Given how many people outright cheat on their taxes and find a moral excuse for doing so I'm not about to judge somebody who takes a legal deduction.

The tax code in the US is screwed up and should be fixed but it won't because nobody wants their deduction taken away. You can blame the big corporations all you want but when the average US citizen looks at European or Canadian tax rates on individual income they aren't going to go for that if it means they pay far more than they currently do.

This is the problem, you don't distinguish between what is legal because of legitimate concerns and what is legal because politicians are bought. It means you have no problem with some of the biggest corporations paying zero taxes.

I didn't say I have "no problem" with it. I do think the tax code should be changed. But until it is I'm not going to demonize those who don't pay more taxes than they have to.

And the whole "biggest corporations" thing is largely a red herring. The bulk of the tax reform needs to take place in the middle but most aren't willing to tell people in the middle that they have to pay more so it's a non-starter. If you think otherwise can you point me to any large scale model where the average person is paying less in personal income tax than in the US but social services are much better because big corporations are paying so much more?

[GT2211]

What has worked "so well so far" is corporate taxation. It's also been a major reason for corporations moving overseas.

Which just goes to show how much corporations care about the population: Not at all. They are just profit machines holding the population hostage under the threat that if they're taxed, they'll just move overseas. There has to be another solution than concession and letting them run the show however the fuck they want, which is what they're doing. It would be cool if it was possible to legislate such that they're not allowed to move their shit to another country to dodge taxes.

Oh wait, that IS possible, but it doesn't happen because the legislators are bought. How do we fix this? Maaaaaybe we should stop voting bought legislators into office? Nah, lets just give up and pray the mob boss will drive through town next month and throw a few coins at us.

Do you think this is true of people as well? I'm thinking back to a recent article in which some conservatives poked fun and make accusations of hypocrisy at Bernie Sanders for only paying 13% on his tax rate of a little over $200k income.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -hypocrisy

Though I think even those who were not inclined to support Bernie defended him as there being no hypocrisy for wanting to change the rules of the game while still playing by the current rules.

I don't necessarily disagree, but is that not what we do to corporations and a lot of other people who use tax havens? I'd imagine a lot liberals who stuck up for Sanders are anxious to see if any loopholes are revealed on Trump's taxes.

I don't know, I just have been kinda struck by the oddness that it seems the people who complain most about corporations avoiding taxes were liberals who were generally okay with Bernie using the code to reduce his burden.

Are you suggesting Sanders moved overseas to pay less tax, or is threatening to? You aren't suggesting he write a cheque to pay extra in taxes to what the codes say he should? That's lunacy.

I feel like this is spinning what I said a bit. I don't have any real strong opinion on how much Bernie should've paid in tax. But I don't feel its fair to criticize some for looking to minimize their tax burden using the existing code. Bernie got his 13% rate by structuring things in a way that allowed him to maximize deductions.

If you're fine with that you're fine with it, but I feel like you should be fine with it for everyone. Not claim outrage when you find out Mitt Romney hardly pays taxes for doing the same thing.

[Willie71]

Which just goes to show how much corporations care about the population: Not at all. They are just profit machines holding the population hostage under the threat that if they're taxed, they'll just move overseas. There has to be another solution than concession and letting them run the show however the fuck they want, which is what they're doing. It would be cool if it was possible to legislate such that they're not allowed to move their shit to another country to dodge taxes.

Oh wait, that IS possible, but it doesn't happen because the legislators are bought. How do we fix this? Maaaaaybe we should stop voting bought legislators into office? Nah, lets just give up and pray the mob boss will drive through town next month and throw a few coins at us.

Do you think this is true of people as well? I'm thinking back to a recent article in which some conservatives poked fun and make accusations of hypocrisy at Bernie Sanders for only paying 13% on his tax rate of a little over $200k income.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -hypocrisy

Though I think even those who were not inclined to support Bernie defended him as there being no hypocrisy for wanting to change the rules of the game while still playing by the current rules.

I don't necessarily disagree, but is that not what we do to corporations and a lot of other people who use tax havens? I'd imagine a lot liberals who stuck up for Sanders are anxious to see if any loopholes are revealed on Trump's taxes.

I don't know, I just have been kinda struck by the oddness that it seems the people who complain most about corporations avoiding taxes were liberals who were generally okay with Bernie using the code to reduce his burden.

Are you suggesting Sanders moved overseas to pay less tax, or is threatening to? You aren't suggesting he write a cheque to pay extra in taxes to what the codes say he should? That's lunacy.

I feel like this is spinning what I said a bit. I don't have any real strong opinion on how much Bernie should've paid in tax. But I don't feel its fair to criticize some for looking to minimize their tax burden using the existing code. Bernie got his 13% rate by structuring things in a way that allowed him to maximize deductions.

If you're fine with that you're fine with it, but I feel like you should be fine with it for everyone. Not claim outrage when you find out Mitt Romney hardly pays taxes for doing the same thing.

Bernie is saying that the corporations who pay zero dollars in tax need to start paying. Not voluntarily, but through amended or rewritten tax codes. I thought this was clear. If that includes himself for the trade off of universal health care, he said he will pay more, like everyone else. I don't get the insinuation of hypocrisy here. The bought politicians give the wealthiest big breaks, and that should change.

[crank]

Not in total they don't. Depending on what you call a loophole, I'd say those for the corporations are by far the larger contribution. But that misses the point, which is whether taking tax breaks can be seen as more or less legitimate. Tax breaks for charity donations and mortgage interest rates can be seen as having some positive aim, it's very different than the self-serving tax breaks, tax credits, tax rebates that get put into the code in order for corps and the rich to enrich themselves with no positives for the country as a whole.

I couldn't care less about moralizing over why people take certain tax breaks. If it's a legal deduction then that's about all I care about. Given how many people outright cheat on their taxes and find a moral excuse for doing so I'm not about to judge somebody who takes a legal deduction.

The tax code in the US is screwed up and should be fixed but it won't because nobody wants their deduction taken away. You can blame the big corporations all you want but when the average US citizen looks at European or Canadian tax rates on individual income they aren't going to go for that if it means they pay far more than they currently do.

This is the problem, you don't distinguish between what is legal because of legitimate concerns and what is legal because politicians are bought. It means you have no problem with some of the biggest corporations paying zero taxes.

I didn't say I have "no problem" with it. I do think the tax code should be changed. But until it is I'm not going to demonize those who don't pay more taxes than they have to.

And the whole "biggest corporations" thing is largely a red herring. The bulk of the tax reform needs to take place in the middle but most aren't willing to tell people in the middle that they have to pay more so it's a non-starter. If you think otherwise can you point me to any large scale model where the average person is paying less in personal income tax than in the US but social services are much better because big corporations are paying so much more?

I said you have that problem, and I still do. If you're worried about people cheating, then allowing big corporations and the richest people avenues to pay less or none, is a fantastic source for anyone to rationalize cheating. I do agree the tax code is insane, it should probably be scrapped and go with a wealth tax.