IRS Systems Hacked
-
@scottalanmiller I'll agree to most of that in principle, though I'd argue that keeping everyone active and proud (while wasteful) is a hell of a lot better than having them sit at home.
Only other part that rankled is your remarks about college being a drain. I know from other posts you've made that you're not a fan but it really does have value. Personally I think that after serving in the army and being paid little, college is not enough but it's certainly better than nothing! Gain valuable skills to put to use in a career.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I'll agree to most of that in principle, though I'd argue that keeping everyone active and proud (while wasteful) is a hell of a lot better than having them sit at home.
So here is the question.... why? I agree that I kind of feel that way, but I am not sure why. If we can get over the stigma of it, why not let people spend time reading, doing art, playing music, drawing, writing, growing a garden. Sure, lots of people will just watch TV. So? If we find even 1% of people are actually awesomely creative and add to society, isn't that better than giving people false pride? And pride in what, really?
What's wrong with people sitting at home if that is what they want to do? It is less costly and less dangerous to have them at home than to have them working - and that's the point. Having people go to jobs created just to give the impression of working uses natural resources, creates highway congestion, creates pollution, uses energy, keeps families from spending time together, encourages pointless wars, costs lives, etc. Why not avoid all that when we can lower the cost and improve the quality of life? Everyone wins!
-
@MattSpeller said:
Only other part that rankled is your remarks about college being a drain. I know from other posts you've made that you're not a fan but it really does have value.
Some college has value, but lots of college has massive negative value. You can't just state that it has value, how do you quantify that? I'm not saying that there is no value to higher education at all. I'm saying that much (nearly all?) of college is not that. It's education for the sake of education - just to create jobs and keep otherwise potentially productive people out of the unemployment pool. Does it make people smarter? Debatable. Does it make people richer? Not in the US.
While there is college that is good and college that is bad, the numbers suggest that most college is bad at this point - because far, far too many people attend. The more than attend, the fewer good professors per student can be found. The value decreases rapidly both as the quality plummets and the ability to add value drops from too many people attending.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Personally I think that after serving in the army and being paid little, college is not enough but it's certainly better than nothing! Gain valuable skills to put to use in a career.
What's the comparison? That college adds valuable skills is a dangerous assumption. Many colleges actually make people worse. Remember that ALL college comes at a cost of lost opportunity. You can't compare college against nothing because nothing is not the alternative. People don't cease to exist for the time that they are not in college. They do other things. Like work or party or make a successful career.
College is just one choice of how to spend that time. That one of the other choices is learning the skills to excel in your career is where college tends to not shine so much.
-
I think that even the pro-college crowd give away how little they think of college when they compare it, literally, against nothing. "It's better than nothing" is said all the time. I understand that they don't mean ceasing to exist but they do imply that someone not going to college will smoke up, play video games and be a dead beat for the exact time that someone else their age goes to college and will then attempt to get a fast food job the day that the college grad graduates and starts to look for a job as a rocket scientist. And while that can happen, you are assuming that everyone that considers or can consider college is inherently worthless and only college can change that.
But that's a rare situation. Most people not going to college will do something else rather than nothing. Maybe they work and gain job experience. Maybe they study and learn skills. Maybe they travel and understand the world better. Maybe they do art or music or something.
I dropped out of college and got to work getting job experience. I was a newspaper photographer, a restaurant manager, a hotel manager, a classical guitarist, a trombone player in a touring wind ensemble and in a brass quintet. I was hardly idle. I got lots of odd, unexpected experience that my friends in college did not get. I spent more time learning IT than they did. I spent more time studying music. I spent more time reading history books. And I did so while building a career in not one but several fields getting more exposure to work, jobs, industries, people, etc.
Sure, that's just me. But the alternative to college isn't nothing, it is something. And that something can very easily be very valuable. College takes time and money. I learned, broadened, etc. while earning money, being cash positive rather than cash negative. That's a big life changer too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So here is the question.... why?
What's wrong with people sitting at home if that is what they want to do?
People actually give a crap about things they've contributed to or feel a belonging to. Be that society in general, or whatever they happen to do for a living. By paying taxes and participating you "buy in" and become part of it instead of watching from the outside.
I do not advocate having incompetent people employed doing useless things by saying that. There are many other ways to achieve it. I wouldn't say no to paying people to stay home either, but I would encourage them to participate even in a small way.
Things I'd throw out that might be worth investigating to make the planet a more awesome place to live for humans:
- Much shorter work week (24h/4day?)
- Reasonable minimum living wage
- Universal healthcare
- Greater emphasis on the arts and cultural events
- Less societal emphasis on climbing the ladder to succeed; avoid the Peter Principle
- Greed shown for the unimaginative and rather pointless activity it is
I'm sure others will have more / better ideas, but that's all I can throw out to radically alter our society for the better at 5pm on a Tuesday afternoon hahah
-
@MattSpeller said:
I do not advocate having incompetent people employed doing useless things by saying that. There are many other ways to achieve it. I wouldn't say no to paying people to stay home either, but I would encourage them to participate even in a small way.
But that's a neat trick of the approach - they are always free to contribute. They can help build monuments, do art or music, teach their kids (or others), read, help the elderly or handicapped, assist their neighbours with things.... they don't have to be idle. They would only be idle if they chose to be. But they wouldn't be afraid of starvation or being homeless so they could be free to take risks, spend time with a sick relative.... whatever.
Paying people to "stay home" does not imply that you are paying them to be under house arrest. Just that they are not expected to get a normal job to pay the bills.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Things I'd throw out that might be worth investigating to make the planet a more awesome place to live for humans:
- Much shorter work week (24h/4day?)
- Reasonable minimum living wage
- Universal healthcare
- Greater emphasis on the arts and cultural events
- Less societal emphasis on climbing the ladder to succeed; avoid the Peter Principle
Some of these things are good, some coincide with the paying people to stay home, but some undermine the economic theory. Now you might not agree with the theory, but the basics of the theory is that 2% of the population produce everything and 98% are in the way. If we kept the 98% home, the 2% could produce even more and everyone would win. Life would improve for ~100% of the people.
Things like shortening the work week don't fix the issue, they actually make it harder for the 2% to get done what needs to be done. Creative types are crippled by forced short work weeks - they aren't allowed to create when inspiration strikes. That's a problem. Forced long weeks don't help either. But when you don't force a work week companies are free to allow the top performers to decide on what is best for them instead of forcing them into averaged that are set based on the needs of the people who are not producing.
-
Dammit, wrong browser.
-
Not that anyone is going to implement a system like this, it is too drastic. But it makes for a very interesting thought experiment. That a to economist feels that this is true, enough that the US government has him on payroll to guide secret agencies, it's worth considering. And what are the ramifications of it? Things like massive "circular" economic systems where millions and millions of workers are put into jobs just to create other jobs just to keep people "out of the way" while feeling like they aren't being shuffled out of the way is really quite possible, plausible and, honestly, probably likely.
And it isn't about an elite 2%, it's about 2% at the moment. Kids under a certain age all in the 98%. As are the elderly over a certain age. Of people in their prime years, the percentage is way higher of people who are productive. People move in and out of the 2% at different stages of their life, I would assume. It is not that 2% of humans are useful - it is that 2% of any given population is productive "right now."
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ Why would a flat tax be better than greater taxes for people who make more?
I could buy into it for simplicity, etc. Would depend if it included capital gains / investment income etc I suppose.
I am for a flat sales tax. Items like food, water, and bare essentials would not be subject to the flat sales tax. So people who need the bare necessities would not be penalized. The more you buy, the more tax you pay.
-
@IRJ said:
I am for a flat sales tax. Items like food, water, and bare essentials would not be subject to the flat sales tax. So people who need the bare necessities would not be penalized. The more you buy, the more tax you pay.
Nearly all of the US has a flat sales tax now. Do you mean instead of other taxes? Like raise the sales tax and eliminate all other taxes?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I am for a flat sales tax. Items like food, water, and bare essentials would not be subject to the flat sales tax. So people who need the bare necessities would not be penalized. The more you buy, the more tax you pay.
Nearly all of the US has a flat sales tax now. Do you mean instead of other taxes? Like raise the sales tax and eliminate all other taxes?
Yeah, something like 21%
-
@IRJ said:
Yeah, something like 21%
So some tax issues with that. Not that I don't like the idea but....
My current tax rate was 52% last time I calculated it. That's a huge tax cut if only part of my income (not the food, not the housing, etc.) were taxed. My overall tax rate with 21% sales tax would be closer to 15% tops, maybe less. Also, the government would have to wait an average of three to six months before getting it. So the drop in tax rate overall would be staggering between the tax delay and the drop in tax rate.
But here is the bigger kicker.... currently I continue to pay US income tax while living abroad while paying sales tax in Europe. But if we moved to sales tax only as a source of taxation, I would instantly become completely tax free and my 52% income tax would drop, effectively, to zero tax!
Now that's just me, but it is the first example that I have at hand. And while that would rock for me. You can see how it would completely cripple the US government if any large number of people had a way to do this and anyone with a significant income does. So all of the people you want to tax the most are the ones who can most easily use this to go to zero tax. The US would, overnight, become an enormous tax haven. No large economy has ever done such a thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Yeah, something like 21%
So some tax issues with that. Not that I don't like the idea but....
My current tax rate was 52% last time I calculated it. That's a huge tax cut if only part of my income (not the food, not the housing, etc.) were taxed. My overall tax rate with 21% sales tax would be closer to 15% tops, maybe less. Also, the government would have to wait an average of three to six months before getting it. So the drop in tax rate overall would be staggering between the tax delay and the drop in tax rate.
But here is the bigger kicker.... currently I continue to pay US income tax while living abroad while paying sales tax in Europe. But if we moved to sales tax only as a source of taxation, I would instantly become completely tax free and my 52% income tax would drop, effectively, to zero tax!
Now that's just me, but it is the first example that I have at hand. And while that would rock for me. You can see how it would completely cripple the US government if any large number of people had a way to do this and anyone with a significant income does. So all of the people you want to tax the most are the ones who can most easily use this to go to zero tax. The US would, overnight, become an enormous tax haven. No large economy has ever done such a thing.
Some things would have to be figured out for sure. Of course most of the really wealthy don't pay much in taxes these days with all the crazy tax breaks they get. It would be nice to get rid of all the IRS employees. That alone would save some dough.
I have seen it proposed that people with incomes lower than X amount are exempt from the flat tax. Sure there is no easy answer, but the system as it is now sucks.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Yeah, something like 21%
So some tax issues with that. Not that I don't like the idea but....
My current tax rate was 52% last time I calculated it. That's a huge tax cut if only part of my income (not the food, not the housing, etc.) were taxed. My overall tax rate with 21% sales tax would be closer to 15% tops, maybe less. Also, the government would have to wait an average of three to six months before getting it. So the drop in tax rate overall would be staggering between the tax delay and the drop in tax rate.
But here is the bigger kicker.... currently I continue to pay US income tax while living abroad while paying sales tax in Europe. But if we moved to sales tax only as a source of taxation, I would instantly become completely tax free and my 52% income tax would drop, effectively, to zero tax!
Now that's just me, but it is the first example that I have at hand. And while that would rock for me. You can see how it would completely cripple the US government if any large number of people had a way to do this and anyone with a significant income does. So all of the people you want to tax the most are the ones who can most easily use this to go to zero tax. The US would, overnight, become an enormous tax haven. No large economy has ever done such a thing.
Some things would have to be figured out for sure. Of course most of the really wealthy don't pay much in taxes these days with all the crazy tax breaks they get. It would be nice to get rid of all the IRS employees. That alone would save some dough.
I have seen it proposed that people with incomes lower than X amount are exempt from the flat tax. Sure there is no easy answer, but the system as it is now sucks.
That's a tiny handful that don't pay heavy taxes. Only the .00001%. But the majority of the nation's wealthy pay very high taxes. There is a reason why affluent Americans don't stay and get out of taxes but instead head to other shores where the taxes are lower.
-
@IRJ said:
I have seen it proposed that people with incomes lower than X amount are exempt from the flat tax. Sure there is no easy answer, but the system as it is now sucks.
Flat tax is the best answer I have seen. It's flat, it's easy, it's for everyone. No surprises when you make $1 more than last year. Some salaries have to adjust just a little to make up for it (minimum wage might go up 20% or whatever) but the basics still work.
If you want income and sales tax, that can work to balance how money is being spent too since flat tax hits a single income, family of four differently than sales tax does (high food and housing cost, for example.) But if you only do sales tax, people will just buy elsewhere, stop buying or whatever.
You can't avoid income, but you can avoid buying.
-
By the way, if anyone ever accuses Americans of being consumer driven, send them to visit Morocco. The consumerism lifestyle is mind boggling. There is nothing but consumerism there. It's like nothing you've ever seen. Life revolves completely around "stuff".
-
I hate it when a good topic goes off topic, but even worst when it is about politics/religion.....
-
@Aaron-Studer said:
I hate it when a good topic goes off topic, but even worst when it is about politics/religion.....
I hate it when an organic discussion gets taken into "being off topic" land so that we have to discuss how topics and conversations work and try to define what "on" or "off" topic is yet again. There are two schools of thought, it seems: one that conversations can't happen and there can be no discussion outside of a narrow context that pretty much means no ongoing conversation or two that the only off topic post is one saying something is off topic.
Given that the topic is about a government tax agency, talking about governments and taxes is a completely natural extension of the original conversation. Is there something more about the original post that needs to be said? Or is it just that you want the thread to stop and no one get to talk about things? What's the desired outcome of the "no off topic" remarks?
If there is something that you want to say that is "on topic" to you, there is nothing keeping you from commenting on the OP. If you feel that the topic has strayed dramatically, just quote the OP and make a comment from that point. The topic only feels like it is straying because there is little or nothing left to say that is a direct response to the OP and instead the interest is in responding to the responses.
So I don't feel that this went off topic. The community is a conversation and this is how conversations work. No one started a "new" topic that wasn't led from the post before it.
