UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

immediate gain for the many, short term pain for the few, and long term gain for all.

- Milton Friedman

ever spend less.

I agree with Baron.

Additionally, not explicitly an economic policy, but it would have economic effect: A tax system that is designed solely to tax, not change behavior.
--If Congress wants to change behavior with monetary incentives, Congress should vote on it as a spending item, not as a tax loophole. That way, you will never hear that a Fortune 100 company doesn't pay any taxes. They will pay their taxes, and you will know all the direct benefits they are receiving from the government, and people can debate whether they want to give those benefits to those Fortune 100 companies.
--As it is now, these companies waste a lot of money employing an entire industry of accountants and lawyers whose sole purpose are to claim exemptions, deductions, credits, whatever, from taxes. It is not a waste for them, but it is a needless drain on the national economy. And, it is unfair, because smaller companies and individuals cannot afford those accountants and lawyers. And, it is hidden, because we never hear about the loopholes being offered; we only hear about this occassionally when someone notes that Apple (or whichever company) doesn't pay any taxes. The tax payment form for everyone, every company and every individual, should be a one page document. Eliminate all the crap from the tax code. Make the tax code a pamphlet of a few sheets, not a stack of books 60 feet high that requires hiring people to not get screwed by the government. That would eliminate much of the IRS as well.

In general, government should do just the bare essentials...defense, justice. Everything else is or should be discretionary / temporary / limited. That is the libertarian view, to which I subscribe.

That basically leaves me without a party. No perfect politician for me these days. I vote for very imperfect and lesser evil politicians every time I go to the voting booth. I mostly vote against politicians, not for them. I don't get excited about anyone. Personal opinion, the best politician we have at the national level is Rand Paul. You can dislike him, but he pisses off both right and left, so that is a sign that he has some principles.

Looking forward to you answering you own question.

There's more to it than that. Yes it may be true that a large successful company didn't pay or paid very little income taxes but there's a reason for it. A lot of companies get tax credits say for R&D. One of the requirements for the R&D credit is that it must be conducted in the US. So the company does R&D in the US, hires employees (most likely leases a building) to do this research to get the tax credit. People seem to forget that the Government is still getting tax revenues from the personal income taxes of these employees. So companies get a tax credit but they also created job growth in the US and the government is still getting individual tax revenue. There's not one company or individual that will pay more tax than they have to under the current tax law. On the personal income tax side, the rich get criticized by the left for having effective tax rates below that of the average American. First of all, let's not forget that half the population pays $0 income taxes. The rich may have an ETR less than the average American but they are still most likely paying millions and the reason their ETR is lower is due to their generous donations to charity that pull down the ETR, but people don't talk about that. The owner of Home Depot said he can definitely pay more income taxes but then it will come at a cost of not being able to give as much to charity. At the end of the day, no company or individual should be vilified for being successful or paying the least amount of tax that they have to under the tax code. Finally, I think it will be a bad idea if Biden raises the federal rate to 28% which has been floated around. People bitch about jobs that got shifted to other countries. Not that long ago, we had the highest corporate tax rate in the world. It's no wonder companies started moving jobs to Ireland and places like that where you can have a 15% corporate rate. Our current 21% corporate rate has helped but moving it back up to 25-28% under Biden plan will put US companies at a disadvantage again. Just my two cents.

I completely agree with you regarding the tax code.

(no message)

(no message)

Why healthcare, and not those other things?

Back in the day (before political activists started changing the definition), a right was something you could do yourself if government left you alone. You had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (you know, that thing). Not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness. A right to free speech, freedom to practice the religion of your choice. These are things you can do yourself if left unmolested.

Socialists and communists came along and started calling things that you got from other people "rights." They wanted to guarantee happiness, not just the right to work for happiness. Your post, and my post listed these so-called "positive rights" (which required the work of others) as opposed to "negative rights" (traditional rights that didn't require free labor of others). Healthcare, housing, etc. were actually listed as rights in the USSR's version of a constitution. But, you needed the power of government to take those things from others and give them to you...which meant that the people who created those things were not motivated to do that well or to do it in abundance...which is why you had a right to housing in the USSR, and housing sucked...and a right to food, and empty grocery store shelves, and famines, etc.

But, can I really have a right to the fruits of another person's labor? Democrats have always thought so. Remember when southern landowner Democrats used to have that right, before the Civil War? But, it seems more appropriate that I only have a right to work for the means to buy that other person's labor.