Taxes

Democrats Have a Lot of Bad Ideas for Tax Reform

Careful, thoughtful policy making is not ruling the day.

|

Passing an enormous, (theoretically) paid-for spending bill that pleases all the various factions within the Democratic Party was never going to be easy. But the current framework that Democrats have unveiled—where party leaders determine what revenue raisers to use by throwing them at a wall like spaghetti and seeing what sticks—is downright disastrous.

This slapdash approach is par for the course nowadays for Congress. Passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was marred by last-second additions and changes, as well as funky accounting to pass muster by reconciliation rules. Even before this year, Congress was not exactly known for fostering the development of careful, thoughtful policy making.

But the process behind trying to "pay for" this year's reconciliation bill has taken things to a whole new level. Ideas that were half-baked from the beginning have arisen only to collapse under their own weight, with each attempt dropping more quickly than the last. It would almost be amusing if it didn't relate to important national fiscal policy.

Take the latest proposal by Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) to establish a "billionaires tax" by imposing a so-called mark-to-market regime of taxing unrealized capital gains for the wealthiest taxpayers. Doing so would not only have been an administrative nightmare for an IRS that is already demanding a massive expansion to its budget to fight tax evasion, but also likely would have wreaked havoc on markets as hundreds of the largest shareholders sold large portions of their holdings just to pay their tax bills.

The idea was promptly put aside, with Wyden's proposal not even lasting a full 24 hours before being pronounced dead. In any functional policy-making environment where legislation is being created by level-headed adults who have the goal of extracting the necessary amount of revenue with the minimum economic harm and additional tax complexity, this never would have happened.

Democrats are instead having the equivalent of a messy Facebook fight, openly airing their dirty laundry in the hopes of achieving their policy priorities through overwhelming public support and positive press. When that fails to materialize, they grumpily return to glaring at each other.

Another example: the since-aborted attempt to sneak an unprecedented expansion of the IRS's power to monitor taxpayers' finances into the reconciliation bill. Pushed by the Treasury Department, the original proposal would have required financial institutions to report data from accounts with annual gross inflows and outflows exceeding $600 total. Though the proposal technically only provided the IRS with data on gross numbers, the IRS could potentially have used its audit power to evaluate specific transactions.

Responding to the backlash over this attempt to monitor just about every account, the proposal was revised to raise the threshold to $10,000, with payroll deposits and spending up to that level exempted. Yet even this would have roped in Americans making cash-tipped wages, about half of small business owners, anyone selling tax-exempt used items, and someone making a large purchase after saving up for years, to name a few examples. By any metric, it would have caught millions of average-income Americans in its dragnet.

That proposal appears to be dead in the water as well after swing-vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) accurately described it as "screwed up." But the question remains of how it got as far as it did—not only was the proposal itself fundamentally flawed, but it does not appear a necessary vote like Manchin was consulted beforehand.

While some of the worst ideas have been filtered out, the current framework has more than its fair share of bad ideas. For example, a proposed excise tax on corporate stock buybacks strikes at a common source of progressive angst, but there's really no good policy reason to discourage buybacks through the tax code.

Then there's proposals for a minimum corporate book tax. Populist claims that the tax code is rigged in favor of corporations are inaccurate—the deductions corporations use to lower their tax bills enjoy bipartisan support in Congress and corporate tax revenues this year are projected to be around the level they were projected to be this year prior to the passage of the 2017 tax cuts. But even if corporations were getting off scot-free, there are much more straightforward, less clunky ways to handle the issue, such as by modifying tax rates.

It's too late in the game to maintain any naivete about whether Congress can be trusted to responsibly shepherd taxpayer funds and maintain a fair and competitive tax code. But taxpayers should at least demand better than this slipshod approach of putting forward as many ideas as possible and seeing what can get passed.

While TCJA had some slapdash ideas attached through the congressional bargaining process, it largely achieved its goal of lowering rates and producing a less complex tax system. The slate of half-baked goods that Congress is preparing to present to American taxpayers would make sure that the tax system will need another overhaul sooner rather than later.

NEXT: Journalist Butchery of School Board Protests Upending Politics in Virginia and Elsewhere

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It's sad when you find meaning in your life in scheming and plotting new ways to steal others income, wealth, and future

    1. "Soaking the rich" = transferring wealth from people who are good at creating economic value to people who are good at accumulating debt. It won't end well, and the bad effects compound over time.

      1. it's easier to understand democrats when you realize everything they want is avoiding responsibility for their own actions.

        Abortion? I shouldn't have to sacrifice my life even though I knocked my girlfriend up

        College? I partied and got a useless degree. That guy who went to class, worked hard, and got a good job should pay for me!

        Taxes? The guy down the street has a nicer house than I do. I should be able to steal from him because I want his stuff

        1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.ghj Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

          Just visit this website now…… READ MORE

          1. So you're already over the 10K threshold for reporting your accounts to the IRS....

            1. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.To You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

              Go Here.............CASH APP

              1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.ZXv simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                Try now……………… Visit Here

        2. 'Abortion? I shouldn't have to sacrifice my life even though I knocked my girlfriend up.'
          Seems far more likely that it would be 'I got knocked up...'

      2. LOL. Name one fucking "rich" person who is not saturated in debt you fucking moron. Notice how the 400 richest people in America keep accumulating fuckloads of new money even after every new "soak the rich" tax scheme gets passed? Ever wondered why, you incurious fucking dillsnick?

        1. Nice response.
          So you think the economy will be better off if the money of productive entrepreneurs is entrusted to the kindly fiduciary care of the US Congress?

        2. Because the democrats engineered the lock downs to crush small businesses and load up their fat cat donors like bezos.

        3. It no coincidence. After the middle class is cut down, the super-wealthy are left standing.

          The rich can spread the pain around. Corporate taxes can go into price hikes, becoming inflation and downwards pressure on wages. Even then, much the money the government takes from the super-rich, one way or another, goes straight into the hands of the unproductive parasite class, who will spend the money directly on consumables, which will be experienced by the middle class as just more inflation. The super-wealthy can go on to congratulate themselves on their elevated social responsibility. The rest of us will just have to be worked to death. Thanks a lot for the "sacrifice", super-wealthy people.

        4. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.BHi simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now............... VISIT HERE

      3. Democrats are not necessary. They could be sent away to faraway lands forever, imprisoned. Decomposing in landfills, etc.. Then all these problems go away.

    2. +100000; at esteve7

    3. Hey now, Attila seemed to be having fun.

  2. Democrats have a lot of bad ideas. Period.

    1. “Democrats Have A Lot of Bad Ideas@—- I stopped reading the headline (let alone the article) after that and promptly filed the whole thing under “W” for “Well I NEVER!!!”

    2. This is how reason says "Goddamn, Trump was so much better"

      Without actually having to full throatedly say Trump was better.

      1. Could you expand on that a bit? Thanks.

        I've not seen evidence that libertarians think Trump was much better at all. Just bad in sometimes different ways.

        1. Oh bullshit.

        2. Pretty much my opinion of government in general. Libertarians know this which is why they want less of it.

          At least the local government sometimes fixes the potholes. What does the federal government do for me?

  3. Why are they calling tax increases tax reform?

    1. Because it is a reform. The tax code has been too lenient on the American people and Democrats want to reform it to make it harsher.

      1. Well, harsher on some. But better for others, and in particular, eliminating the SALT cap that used to subsidize higher income people in high tax cities and states, by everyone else.

    2. Reform - to form again. Nothing says it makes it better.

  4. "Passing an enormous, (theoretically) paid-for spending bill that pleases all the various factions within the Democratic Party was never going to be easy."

    As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I'll be happy as long as Democrats please their most important faction: billionaires.

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. You need to explain democrat economics to our new toaster struddle sock latarsha walshe.

  5. Ideas that were half-baked from the beginning have arisen only to collapse under their own weight

    Voilá, the soufflé budget!
    Or maybe the Baked I'll ask ya.

    1. You really Flambéed em there!

    2. Of course, in all fairness, they ARE running out of dough…

    3. ++++

      1. Don't overbeat it, or it'll collapse under its own weight.

  6. It’s easy to see they have no idea what they are doing.

    1. Of course, that needs to be challenged by pointing out the fact that they won the election and control the Executive mansion (I am assuming it would be racist to suggest a democrat lived in a "white" house) as well as both legislative councils.
      I submit that while they may (deliberately) appear inept at governing, they know exactly how to rule.

      1. Of course, that needs to be challenged by pointing out the fact that they won rigged the election and …….

      2. Yes, Marxists have more street smarts than their opponents. They aren't dumb. They're probably enjoying seeing the middle class get eviscerated. We're the bourgeoisie. A long as we exist we are a threat and have to be eliminated.

  7. by throwing them at a wall like spaghetti and seeing what sticks

    openly airing their dirty laundry

    Quite the picture!

  8. Politicians are not competent at anything but... politics.

    Why the hell would you expect a decent idea from them? They're going about it all wrong with the interest committee pretending to be technical experts.

    1. One of my ideas for reforming legislatures is requiring legislators to certify, under threat of citizen charges for perjury, that a bill confirms to the consensus of their district. They could rely on polls and surveys, they could rely on town hall meetings, but they have to pass muster as actual solid evidence of what their district wants, as ultimately determined at trial. Complaining that 2 legislators are thwarting the will of the other 48, ignoring the 50 from the other party who are also opposed, might be good enough for a complaint press, but would never pass muster in a trial.

      As long as I'm wishing, what the heck ....

      1. I think any official of the state should be personally sued and criminally liable if they pass or enforce unconstitutional items. No more hiding behind the government shield. I was just following orders is not an excuse.

        1. Or simply hold them to the maximum penalties of law by default. No weaseling out when they get caught.

        2. The constitution has been so warped and perverted and stood on it's head that "following the constitution" is plausibly what the congress has been doing.

          As it says in my state's constitution, "From time to time it is necessary to return to first principles".

          The first principles of our constitution are a presumption of individual liberty protected by a strictly limited government.

      2. We would have to prohibit the use of (anti)social media in that process.

        (and while you are wishing, a pony for every child)

      3. Rule by consensus of the majority is called democracy. It's a dangerous form of government.

    2. Sure they are.

      Lying.
      Corruption.
      Self enrichment.

      I could go on.

  9. throwing them at a wall like spaghetti and seeing what sticks

    I see Mitch McConnell is writing your material.

  10. Fuck you, cut spending.

    1. Don't let your boyfriend jeff hear you say that.

    2. ^EXACTLY! Cut Spending +10000

      1. I get the impression that many of the team D's are over this wonderful progressive experiment. They aren't nearly at forceful in their defense of the endless parade of stupid coming out of DC as they were a few months back.

    3. Yet you support the guy who wants an $8.2 trillion baseline budget.

  11. Both spending bills need to go down in flames. And sequestration might need to make a comeback to get an agreement on the debt limit.

    1. We already have an agreement on the debt limit. Don't exceed it.

  12. Their main tax reform idea seems to be to squeeze more blood out of the rock, with 87,000 new IRS agents (hint: there are fewer than 800 billionaires) and the ability to spy on everyone's bank accounts (if you don't transfer more than 10K per year, you probably don't owe any taxes anyway.)

    Why they think this is popular is beyond me. The political ads almost write themselves.

    1. They think it's popular because it appeals to envy. Eat the rich!

      1. You appeal to fat Jeff and miketard envy all the time. Eat a dick!

        1. The only explanation for that is you don't read my comments, you're a moron, or you're trying to impress the trolls. Regardless you can join them in muteland.

          1. No, he’s spot on. Face it, you’re just awful.

          2. dizzle nailed it

      2. It is popular and it is amazing popular among people on the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum. Their is always the idea that some group is getting a better deal than me and should pay more. I don't agree, I think the tax code need to be more thought out but sadly to many thing there is a simple solution, tax anybody but me.

        1. "It is popular and it is amazing popular among people on the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum."

          You.
          Are.
          STILL.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

    2. He’s wise half the population pays no taxes.
      Free college and free child care is indeed free…for them

  13. Any reform short of ending them is immoral.

  14. "Democrats Have a Lot of Bad Ideas"

    Yes. Yes they do.

  15. The freedom to sell tax-exempt used items w/o some 3rd party facilitator collecting taxes or 1099ing you for them has been greatly diminished as of late. Hobby selling is a compliance nightmare and if you want to sell that fancy watch you received as a graduation gift from a rich relative 20 or 30 years ago and never wore Ebay is going to collect sales tax and the payment processor is going to 1099 you and you're liable for capital gains...

    1. Or you bought a fourth of a bitcoin for 5K last year, and you want to sell it for 15K now. Gotcha.

      1. If you worked part time at a minimum wage job in a flyover state, and live month-to-month, spending most of your income as it comes in, you're on the hook.

        Party of the working class!

  16. Meanwhile, Biden got his international standard on corporate tax rates approved at the G20 meeting today, with 140 countries signed on with penalties for the few hold outs that shelter tax cheats like Apple. The deal is expected to yield $140 billion a year and bolster tax receipts nationally.

    Hear, hear!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/30/world/europe/g20-biden-corporate-tax-agreement.html

    1. International corporate tax rates are terrible policy, and it makes sense that your hero Senile Creepy Sleepy Grafting Joe is for them, because he's been wrong on every policy issue for the last 50 or so years he's been in government.

    2. Great! Now we can look forward to companies moving even more jobs to places with cheap labor and lax environmental regulations because the bottom line will matter even more. If you think this will only affect blue collar workers not latte sipping liberals like you, think again.

    3. Yeah! Let's stick it to the corporations! And all those rich assholes who own them! Like people saving for retirement! Fuck those assholes and their 401K plans! Let them starve when they get old!

      1. The 401k system is terrible, and very few people forced into it will have much in the way of a retirement.

        But isn't it possible that if Amazon is paying $0 in taxes, the problem is that there are too many tax write-offs available to them? And it's not beyond the realm of plausibility that the tax code favors the wealthy and powerful, what with all their wealth and power.

        That said, corporate taxation is mostly a political thing. Make the individuals pay taxes. The point of taxation is redistribution of wealth. CEOs, as you indicate with your comment, aren't going to dip into their own treasure caves to pay new taxes unless absolutely forced to.

        1. I'm sure that Ton's new 501r, or whatever he wants to call it, will be vastly superior to a 401k. If we just make Amazon pay their fair share, we'll all live happily ever after with a living wage that doesn't make us waste our lives working. It's unfortunate that I'm not as smart as Tony, so I've ruined my life by working and paying my mortgage. I'm stupidly paying college tuition out-of-pocket so my kids won't be able to benefit from a free gender studies degree after Joe waives away student loans. One day, I hope to be enlightened, too.

          1. The 401k system was a market-based reform of the pension system. Remember pensions? They're almost extinct, so you may not.

            Lots of people have thought that placing old people's retirement in the hands of the stock market was a bad idea, but it sure was a good way to get money into the stock market.

            1. Pensions are ponzi schemes. They were replaced because they are unsustainable.

              1. A guaranteed payment is the opposite of a Ponzi scheme.

                We can all look at the data. These "pro-market" reforms resulted in nothing but CEOs taking all productivity gains for themselves and workers getting screwed. It was outright theft in plain daylight. Aided by such nonsense propaganda as you just repeated.

                I'm no big lover of pensions as old-age security. I think people deserve not to starve in old age regardless of whether they spent their life working for a business. Decouple basic security from the workplace altogether, that's what I say. A marketplace in which part of the bargain for workers is the threat of losing access to basic necessities is not a free market, it's a heavily coerced one.

                1. SSI, the government pension program, is a literal Ponzi scheme.
                  There is no lockbox. Payroll taxes fund current payments. That's the literal definition of Ponzi scheme.

                  As far as worker pensions go, paying people not to work for twenty or thirty years isn't sustainable. Just look at state governments like California or companies like GM.

                  Now if what you say about CEOs is true, then their salaries would be able to pay pensions for retired people. Well the math doesn't work.

                2. I've paid very little into social security due to my employment situation, but I have managed to save a whole bunch of money through investing.

                  Why would it be fair to tax and inflate me out of all my savings, to pay for other people's pensions, when they won't pay for mine? I'll *gladly* opt out of the system. Where can I sign up?

                  The way the government is managing things, particularly money itself, it will only be able to provide "basic security" for favored parasite groups. Everyone else is going to be a slave, taxed and worked to death. Kindly keep your hands off my property, and I'll do the same for you.

                3. "A guaranteed payment is the opposite of a Ponzi scheme..."

                  Shitstain CLAIMS to be 'educated'; striking evidence that whatever passed for education in his life was totally wasted.

              2. When pensions were funded by workers and held in trust for workers, they worked pretty well. People were willing to have part of what their productivity produced put into a pension fund and paid out to them after they retired.

                401k's worked pretty well too, and as long as the owners of the accounts paid attention and had control over where their investments went, they mostly came out well.

                A problem I am aware of through personal experience is having a bankruptcy judge allow the company to raid the pension fund, rationalizing that that would "save" the company. All it did in fact was make the pension fund disappear.

                1. But when people retire and get paid for thirty years after working for twenty, they're not being paid by the money they set aside. They're being paid by current workers. That's why it's a Ponzi scheme.

            2. The market has returned an average of just over 8% over the last 30 years. Where are you going to get that kind of interest? Then figure in compounding. Plus if you can control your account you can do even better. The 401k / IRA is pretax. By the time I am ready to retire my tax rate will be lower. It is a great deal. I am a conservative investor which has paid off in the long run.

        2. The point of taxation is redistribution of wealth.

          Legalized theft is still theft, and those who support it are still thieves.

          1. The purpose of taxation is to pay for the amount of government necessary to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property.

            There were very good reasons why the taxing power granted to congress was strictly limited. If followed, those constitutional limitations make wealth redistribution impossible... which is probably exactly why they are ignored by congress.

            1. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
              ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

            2. Just so you know, I've gone round and round with Tony on that subject and he literally cannot understand the difference between taxation to pay for a government that protects our life, liberty and property, and taxation for the simple purpose of stealing from one party to give to another. That's because when taxes pay government employees to do stuff, it's a wealth transfer. He sees no difference between that and government robbing the rich to give to layabouts. He sees no difference between the use of force in reaction to force, and the initiation of force to get something you want.
              I just hope there are not more people like him, or this country is doomed.

              1. Tony is stupid. He’s a valid leftist drone. And the epitome of a bitch ‘raving faggot’. He’s probably never done a bit of real work in his whole life.

              2. I just don't subscribe to the same self-contradictory lizard-brain moral premises you do.

                Taxation is redistribution. It doesn't matter what it pays for. You can say you're for this government policy and not that one, but you don't have grounds to complain only on the basis that it's redistributive.

                Do better. Read more books. This is basic.

                1. You’re incapable of understanding much of anything.

        3. Fucking moron, your pals are the ones who give them all those exemptions. Why do you think Bezos is a goddamn democrat?

  17. We can fix the fact that some corporations don’t pay income taxes in a less clunky way by tinkering with tax rates? How does that math work?

  18. The Nazi-Regime has "bad ideas" as an unlimited "ruler".
    Where the F! did the USA go?

    This is what happens when the ideology that 'federal' kings/rulers should !!RULE!!! the world and everything in it about everything under the sun. And the reason for such repeated stupidity of historical condemnations.......

    .... Any excuse to STEAL. (i.e. Criminalistic Greed).
    The USA was suppose to avoid all this; by "The People's Law" over their government. Ya know that Law no one wants to talk about anymore and want to pretend doesn't even exist.

    What has the federal government done since the Nazi-Regime was elected that even fits into their job description??? They are worse than that horrible micromanager that disrupts attitude and performance at work; they actually charge you for their micromanaging.

    1. I'm not sure that feudal kings were so bad. Here's a quote from an online article about taxation at the time of the American revolution:

      By 1775, the British government was consuming one-fifth of its citizens’ GDP, while New Englanders were only paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes.

      Now in England taxation, as a percentage of GDP is now about 33% (from 20% at the time of King George), and in America, if you are making good money, the amount of it that you end up paying in income tax (state + federal) alone can be in the vicinity 33%, and then you have sales taxes and property taxes on top of that, and if you take into account that any corporate holdings are also taxed, and then inflation you have to wonder if the real taxation level isn't already something like 50%.

      This has all happened on the auspices of democracy. It turns out that democracy may not be such a great idea after all. Not if people who don't pay in can parasatize the people who do.

      1. Thus it isn't really an American Government it's Nazi-Democracy running America right now. The U.S. Constitution was suppose to prevent this kind of armed robbery - yet, the new *woke* Nazi-Regime hides behind championing of Democracy (well; so long as they win their armed theft regime).

        With a 30% approval rating it makes me at least wonder how much of the Election system isn't already rigged. That and there are far too many of us desiring the over-taking of a USA government for Nazi-Democracy.

    1. I don't suppose this will cause Sen. Sinema to reflect on the fact that she's opposing widely popular initiatives pushed by her own party for reasons she can't articulate.

      The fact that one person's hurt feelings can change the course of the world is why there should be no senate.

      1. The initiatives so popular that they can't get their own party to vote for them without causing political suicide?

        1. Well, it's because our system of government is unfixably demented. Idaho gets exactly the same amount of representation in the Senate as California despite California having 25 times the population. This skews political priorities absurdly toward rural, white people, so even though most of the provisions in these bills are very popular among Americans as a whole, the bias in Congress prevents it from acting along those lines.

          Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate, and one of those votes is a guy from West Virginia, a red state dependent on coal. Joe Manchin has single-handedly been able to cut the bill down because every senator gets veto power in this scenario.

          Meanwhile Republicans are simply not interested in governing beyond means to accumulate even more undemocratic power for themselves. This has been a lesson in American civics. You're welcome.

          1. The Senate represents the states, not the people. That's what the House is for. Before the 17A Senators were chosen by state governments to represent the states. Having senators popularly elected ruined one of the most important checks against federal power. The idea being that the House wants to force the states to do something they don't want to do, they can veto it. Things like unfunded mandates or "do this or you don't get federal funding."

            1. I don't think we should attribute aspects of the American government to brilliance what can be better attributed to compromises with slave-owners.

              The value in states having quasi-sovereignty like this was dubious in the 18th century and is totally nonsensical today.

              The US is a single, large, unified country now. It exists in a globalized world. So the federal government acts in ways that affect all Americans regardless of who's in charge. There is no remotely practical or moral reason to give someone who happens to be born in West Virginia so much more power over what that federal government does than someone who happened to be born in California.

              Surely you can agree with that even if your particular politics benefit from such an absurdly undemocratic situation.

              1. Wow dude. I guess you really despise the Constitution and the form of government the Founders gave us. That's really sad.

                1. I don't despise it at all. I'm both a student of the history of thought and political science, and there's some good stuff in the Enlightenment period. Top-notch governing for its time.

                  What you seem to want me to do is to worship the United States system of government even as it falls apart all around us. I don't worship anything. Grow up.

                  Santa Claus isn't real either.

                  1. The founders despised democracy. So you really must hate the Constitution if that's what you want.

                    1. Yes, that's what I learned in school, that the founders were tyrants who loved tyranny. Also, we should totally worship them for it.

                      WTF do you get this crap? Obviously they didn't endorse democracy as it's currently understood. They didn't let vast portions of the population vote.

                      The question is, do you think vast portions of the population should be denied the right to vote?

                  2. And it never started to "fall apart all around us" until stupid people like you decided the USA Constitution wasn't worth paying attention to and was all wrong.

                    Maybe stupid people like you should LEAVE the USA PERIOD! Instead of trying to destroy it constantly and compulsively. Then you won't have to worry about it and neither will us USA patriots.

                    1. But we occupy all the cities.

                      You wouldn't know what to do with a city. There's only so many fringe churches and feed stores you can cram into a skyscraper.

                    2. And the U.S. Constitution gives YOUR city all the [WE] mob gangster Power you could handle Tony. Ironically; your [WE] mob theft-gang destroys your own cities (ex; Detroit) then goes running to your neighbors (State or Federal) for MORE theft.

                      The beauty of the federalism instilled in that U.S. Constitution.
                      So do explain exactly why; you stupid people cannot leave the federal government alone????

                      As stated to you multiple times. Yet the left sure is daft or selectively ignorant.

                    3. That's right; The #1 motive of the DNC is to conquer and consume.

                  3. You’re a Marxist Tony. So you want a Marxist government. It’s to be expected that you have no respect, understanding, or appreciation for our constitutional republic. In part because you’re stupid, lazy, and narcissistic. You should GTFO of A,Erica and go somewhere like China or Venezuela. Which fit you much better.

            2. It's so popular in the house that it nothing has happenedb there, either. They may have the votes, but if so, by a very slim margin. The margin is so thin, that anything passed can't be considered overwhelmingly popular.

              1. The House is incredibly unrepresentative too. Perhaps you've heard of gerrymandering.

                Biden is very poll-driven. Most of his agenda is widely popular, despite what Congress looks like. The most popular policy proposal of all? Raising taxes on the rich.

                1. Of course it's popular. He's appealing to envy. And those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

                  He's got Paul's support.

                  But popularity doesn't make something right.

                  1. So America is mostly filled with terrible people? There's no legitimate reason ever to support raising taxes? (Like balancing the budget?)

                    So let's do the math. Most people are horrible, envious parasites. But the principle of democracy insists that the people get to govern themselves regardless of what their motivations are. Gee, you'd think taxes would be higher on the rich than they are.

                    1. But the principle of democracy insists that the people get to govern themselves regardless of what their motivations are. Gee, you'd think taxes would be higher on the rich than they are.

                      What if they wanted to tax you, and only you, to the point of starvation? That would be OK because "the people get to govern themselves regardless of what their motivations are." At this point you can't even argue that "the people" have to respect fundamental human rights, when "the people" get to decide what those rights are.

                    2. Who wold you prefer decide these things other than the people? Some guy?

                    3. So America is mostly filled with terrible people?
                      Yes.

                      There's no legitimate reason ever to support raising taxes? (Like balancing the budget?)
                      Correct. Cut spending.

                      But the principle of democracy insists that the people get to govern themselves
                      No, the principal of democracy insists that a majority may rule over all of us. Liberty requires that each individual govern themself and no one else.

                      Who wold you prefer decide these things other than the people? Some guy?
                      Literally no one. Free individuals should be sovereign, and anyone who tries to impose "these things" should by shot on the spot by people who refuse to relinquish their liberty.

                    4. Who wold you prefer decide these things other than the people? Some guy?

                      Hans Herman Hoppe made the case that a hereditary king is better safe keeper of civilization than a democratic mob, and what he calls "natural order" is preferable to that. I'm somewhat on the fence about what the best system of government is. A monarchy could be wonderful until the king's corrupt and stupid son takes over and Hans Herman Hoppe's utopian vision sounds a bit too theoretical for my liking.

                      The one thing I'm certain of is that I'll always support any political faction that will preserve property rights as well as the value of money, and keep taxes down. And, right now, that means putting a stop to democracy by any means necessary.

                    5. We are not, and never have been, a democracy. You’re a stupid, ignorant swishbuckler.

                  2. "But the principle of democracy insists"
                    The USA is NOT a Democracy.....

                    It's a CONSTITUTIONAL Union of Republican States.
                    That is the ERROR..

          2. Tony, you obviously do not understand the structure of our national government not why it is designed the way it is.

            The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the state and the House is supposed to represent the interests of the people.

            In theory, the Senate will resist the "leveling impulse" to prevent brief moments of mass insanity from destroying America through "democracy", while the House will resist the impulse of state governments to turn us into a crony capitalist oligarchy.

            1. Tony hates any limitations on government.

              1. That's a facile way of putting it. I do want government to be limited, and I want it to be limited by the people, just as envisioned by our sacred founders.

                You want government run by a tyranny of whoever happens to live in rural districts. There is no power-limiting principle in anything you're endorsing. It's just giving power to people who don't deserve it for no good reason, and who have never demonstrated a willingness not to use that power for bad purposes.

                1. Tyranny of rural districts? As opposed to what? Your tyranny of the most populous cities lording over the rest of the country?

                  "and I want it to be limited by the people, just as envisioned by our sacred founders."

                  Then you have absolutely no fucking clue as to the kind of government the founders created. No clue at all.

                  1. Tyranny of rural districts? As opposed to what? Your tyranny of the most populous cities lording over the rest of the country?

                    This is an interesting political science problem, and in theory some affirmative action for rural residents might be justified by, I dunno, the tendency of city folk to dominate government.

                    But that's not what the Founders were doing. The Founders were elitists. Being an uneducated hick, if anything, made you less qualified to govern other people. The relevant political division of the time, which necessitated the compromise that led to things like the Senate, was not urban vs. rural but free state vs. slave state. This is a mundane fact of history.

                    Then you have absolutely no fucking clue as to the kind of government the founders created. No clue at all.

                    I said the Founders wanted a government by, for, and of the people. What do you think they wanted?

                    1. A limited republic with enumerated and defined powers.

                    2. Limited as in retarded?

                      The United States is still operating under the same constitution, and most people consider it a pretty legitimized government (I'm 50/50 on that question).

                      So as a matter of definitional fact, the constitution permits everything the federal government is doing (including checks on legislation such as judicial review).

                      Your argument is that the perfect constitution is fatally flawed. Have you disappeared in a puff of logic yet?

                    3. So as a matter of definitional fact, the constitution permits everything the federal government is doing (including checks on legislation such as judicial review).

                      The Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to be a check on federal power by adopting a policy of deference, meaning that all legislation is considered to be constitutional unless proven otherwise. That completely negates the concept of limited and defined powers, as well as checks and balances.

                      The founders envisioned branches of government competing for power. They apparently didn't think they'd collude to destroy the limitations put on them.

                    4. Your argument is that the perfect constitution is fatally flawed.

                      Nice strawman. I never said it was perfect, though it's the best government anyone's come up with yet in human history.

                      It is however a shame that it is for the most part ignored.

                      As far as I can tell, this is the only parts anyone reads.

                      "Congress can lay taxes, regulate commerce, and promote the general welfare."

                      That's it. Power limited only by the Bill of Rights.

                    5. Sure they did. They were paranoid and inventing a new form of government. They had no reason to believe it would last 10 years. Some thought there should be a revolution once a generation to keep things fresh.

                      The one unequivocal thing you can say about the founders is that if you told them that you worshiped their system of government as the one true system, they would spew ale in your face.

                      You're still arguing against yourself. You're endorsing a system of government while rejecting everything it has led to.

                    6. Alright Tony, I'm done. I don't worship anything, and if I told them that the commerce clause has been interpreted to mean regulating all economic activity, that general welfare has been interpreted to mean unlimited wealth transfer, and that phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" have been interpreted to mean "laws and infringement are fine as long as the legislature says it's ok" they'd be calling for a revolution.

                    7. Perhaps. I'd speculate that they'd be surprised that we didn't have one a long time ago.

                      Oh, we did. The country fell totally apart 70 years after it was founded. It was practically remade into a different country after that, though with the same documents at the heart of its legal system. Some things since then have been rough going.

                      So I'm glad we both agree that the constitution should by all rights be scrapped and put in a museum and that the UN should come impose a modern form of government on us before we crack up again.

                    8. The Constitution built the wealthiest Nation in the world. Until imbeciles like you found out you couldn't STEAL as much as you wanted.. So decided it was "bad", "racist", "elitist" or whatever B.S. name you wanted to make up and call it so you could STEAL from that wealth.

                      And now it sucks BECAUSE it is ignored and Nazi (National Socialist) - Democracy took it's place.

                      PROJECTION, PROJECTION, PROJECTION.... That's all leftards do.

                2. Tony, the Senate was to be a check against the whims of the House. They were supposed to represent the state governments that end up implementing federal policy. So if the people decided they want free shit, and the states don't have free shit to give them, they could say no. Having the Senate chosen by popular election ruined one of the most important checks against federal power in the Constitution.

                  1. I confess I don't understand this argument entirely. Why is it better for Senators to be nominated by state legislatures? Why does that equal more freedom? Is there some Ron Paul newsletter I have failed to read?

                    It was changed, of course, because of all the rampant corruption the original system led to. As hard as it is to believe that the Founders may have not designed the perfect system of government for all time.

                    1. Why is it better for Senators to be nominated by state legislatures?

                      Can't you read? "They were to represent the state governments that end up implementing federal policy."

                      That's why. They represent the states, not the people. The House represents the people.

                    2. How can states have interests that need representation? They are imaginary spaces on a map. They are not sentient. They aren't even biological. And you still haven't explained why it's good.

                    3. Are the European countries nothing but imaginary spaces on a map? No? Then why are the states?

                      Ohhhhh, I get it. You want to abolish the states and just have uniform federal law oppressing everyone equally.

                    4. That political divisions exist is certainly true. I do think they will one day be seen as a relic of our pre-technological evolution. If nothing else, the divisions were drawn in a totally different socio-political environment, and they can only make sense now for the sake of continuity and no insignificant amount of human tribal impulses.

                      But as states are emotional constructs more than anything else, do you really feel that people consider themselves Montanans or New Yorkers more than they consider themselves American? People expect to be able to travel freely between states. What problem are we solving by making it less free, again?

                      At any rate, you're ignoring my point, which is that the United States federal government exists and has a lot of power. Giving more of that power to rural voters than urban voters doesn't reduce that power! It just makes it more likely to be misused.

                    5. Giving more of that power to rural voters than urban voters doesn't reduce that power!

                      Giving the states equal representation does not give voters more power. It gives states equal power.

                      You're giving me a headache. Good night.

                    6. State's can't have power because states are imaginary things! And you're still not explaining why this leads to better freedom or whatever.

                    7. It's the same principle as....
                      Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don't own YOU, [WE] own you... Resides.

                      The smaller/more local a POWER is the more reflective of it's area's interest it is. Now who is [WE] in the statement? The larger collective of [WE] the less freedom each individual receives and is controlled by outer-forces.

                      Individual Liberty gets diluted incrementally by each level of larger [WE] Power over the Individual.

                      That is why the U.S. Constitution limits the National powers to only National matters, generally State Constitutions limits powers to only State matters/affairs, and County/City has the most amount of powers to manage the specifics of City/County affairs.

                      All of them checked once again by the Bill of Rights that ensures specific Individual Liberties are always persistent (i.e. like not allowing slavery - since the civil war anyways 13th & 14th Amendments).

                      Pretending States are imaginary is like pretending America is imaginary and asking why China, Mexico, North Korea, etc, etc cannot vote in our elections. It pollutes/dilutes whatever representation we exercise inside the boundaries of the Check-n-Balances of the Constitution just gone over.

                3. If we went to a straight democracy, about eight cities would effectively decide how the country runs. Which is the exact reason we don’t do it that way.

            2. you obviously do not understand the structure of our national government not why it is designed the way it is.

              Sure I do. Understanding and endorsing are two different things.

              In theory, the Senate will resist the "leveling impulse" to prevent brief moments of mass insanity from destroying America through 'democracy'"

              Yes, and even though the Founders were paranoid and skeptical of democracy, they nevertheless expected the Senate to work according to majority vote like every other voting body in the history of earth. But there's no reason to presume you endorse the filibuster, I suppose, what with your deference to the original system.

              while the House will resist the impulse of state governments to turn us into a crony capitalist oligarchy.

              Didn't work.

              1. "Yes, and even though the Founders were paranoid and skeptical of democracy, they nevertheless expected the Senate to work according to majority vote like every other voting body in the history of earth."

                So you don't know the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy.

                1. Now this is a non sequitur, logic bros.

                  Say, what is your opinion of the filibuster rule, oh blindly faithful supporter of the founding constitutional design.

                  1. Now this is a non sequitur, logic bros.

                    I'll take that as a no.

                    Say, what is your opinion of the filibuster rule, oh blindly faithful supporter of the founding constitutional design.

                    I believe the constitution says they get to make their own rules. So if that's a rule that they made, then that's a rule that they made.

                    1. But surely you have an opinion on whether it's a good rule.

                      Congress is empowered to pass laws, and you clearly don't like all of those.

                    2. .....Only if granted the authority by "The People" to pass said law.
                      If you don't think that's right; get the 2/3rds Congress and 3/4 State Ratification needed from the people to change it...

                      Otherwise; Stop your treasonous cheer-leading to destroy the USA.

                    3. But surely you have an opinion on whether it's a good rule.

                      Nope. No opinion at all.

                    4. Do you know the British have one of the most advanced governments in the world with no written constitution and a damn queen? Blows the mind.

                    5. "Congress is empowered to pass laws"

                      Yes, they are. As long as those laws are authorized by the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

                      "and you clearly don't like all of those."

                      Yes, I don't like the ones that are not authorized by the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

                      Why is that so difficult to understand? Oh yeah, because you despise limited powers.

                    6. Do you know the British have one of the most advanced governments in the world with no written constitution and a damn queen?

                      Great. Go there then. Go to where you're on camera wherever you go, where dentistry doesn't exist, where you're not allowed to defend yourself, where half your income is taken away in taxes, where you're a subject not a citizen. Stop trying to change this country into what the founders escaped.

                    7. Lol, yes, the founders braved the vast ocean to escape the tyranny of the National Health Service.

                      My understanding is that the British feel that disgusting crooked teeth add character.

                    8. Indeed sarcasmic, the Senate can make it's own rules, even stupid ones like the current form of the filibuster which requires a super majority for all but budgetary items in conflict with the constitution which is very specific on what items require that high bar. a speaking filibuster is a different fish and consistent with the constitution and common sense, We the people have a right to express our opinion about this bulls..t senate rule which has rendered the Congress dysfunctional in a way at odds with the founders vision.

                    9. Britain is a disaster currently. They are not to be emulated. So of course Tony is enchanted with it.

          3. You guys don't get it. This addresses corporations making their money here and hiding it overseas. Unless you think they shouldn't pay taxes and favor you and me picking up the slack - you guys gave off shore accounts? - that makes no sense for us or the US.

            1. Fuck off and die, Joe.

      2. They’re not widely popular wit Americans. Just Marxist trash like you.

  19. Here is why Billionaires will not being paying more tax. Because most are Democrats and contribute heavily to the DNC and Dem's reelection campaigns. It is all smoke and mirrors on taxing the rich. You get to a Republican at no. 10 Alice Walton

    1 Elon Musk Increase188.6 Tesla, Inc., SpaceX 50
    2 Jeff Bezos Increase187 Amazon 57
    3 Bill Gates Increase129 Microsoft 65
    4 Mark Zuckerberg Increase105 Facebook 36
    5 Warren Buffett Decrease87.5 Berkshire Hathaway 90
    6 Larry Ellison Increase77.9 Oracle Corporation 76
    7 Steve Ballmer Increase69 Microsoft 64
    8 Larry Page Increase75.7 Google 47
    9 Sergey Brin Increase65.7 Google 47
    10 Alice Walton Increase62.3 Walmart 70
    11 Jim Walton Increase70.2 Walmart 72
    12 Rob Walton Increase61.8 Walmart 75
    13 MacKenzie Scott Increase57 Amazon 50
    14 Michael Bloomberg Increase55 Bloomberg L.P. 78
    15 Charles Koch Increase45 Koch Industries 84
    16 Julia Koch Increase45 Koch Industries 58
    17 Phil Knight Increase39.2 Nike, Inc. 82
    18 Michael Dell Increase35.6 Dell 55
    19 Sheldon Adelson (RIP) Decrease29.8 Las Vegas Sands 87
    20 Jacqueline Mars Decrease29 Mars, Incorporated 80
    21 John Franklyn Mars Decrease29 Mars, Incorporated 84
    22 Len Blavatnik Increase25 Access Industries 63
    23 Jim Simons Increase23.5 Renaissance Technologies 82
    24 Stephen A. Schwarzman Increase19.1 Blackstone Group 73
    25 Leonard Lauder Decrease17.4 Estée Lauder Companies 83

    1. What is this showing? What do the numbers mean and what is it that "increase" or "decrease" is referring to?

      Oh, and Larry Ellison is higher than no. 10. He had contributed to both Democrats and Republicans in the past, but seems to have supported prominent Republicans mostly in recent years. He hosted a GOP Senatorial campaign fundraiser at his California home featuring Rand Paul in 2014. He gave a few million to a pro-Marco Rubio Super PAC in 2016. He didn't give much after the 2016 election (though he gave some smaller amounts to Republicans for the 2018 midterms) until 2020, when he allowed Trump to hold a fundraiser at one of his California estates and golf courses. It is no wonder then, that Oracle has not been included in Trump's diatribes against "Big Tech", or by anyone on the right, for that matter.

    2. Three of the Walton offspring are noble-spirited free-market successful entrepreneurs, same as their father? What an amazing coincidence.

  20. Off topic, but this board needs it.

    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    NEW YORK – Health officials on Friday offered more evidence that vaccinations offer better protection against COVID-19 than immunity from a prior infection.

    Unvaccinated people who had been infected months earlier were 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people who didn’t have a prior infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in a new study.

    “These data show, pretty strongly, that the vaccines are more protective against symptomatic COVID,” said Dr. Mike Saag, an infectious disease expert at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

    The study looked at data from nearly 190 hospitals in nine states. The researchers counted about 7,000 adult patients who were hospitalized this year with illnesses or symptoms similar to those of COVID-19.

    About 6,000 of them had been fully vaccinated with the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines three to six months before they wound up in hospitals. The other 1,000 were unvaccinated but had been infected with COVID-19 three to six months earlier.

    About 5% of the vaccinated patients tested positive for the coronavirus vs. about 9% of the unvaccinated group. The researchers factored in other data points, including age and how much virus was circulating in different areas, to calculate that the unvaccinated group was at even higher risk.

    1. Fuck off and die, Joe.

    2. Stupid study. Stupid result. They biased the results by the way that they selected their samples.

      1. What do you have against the data?

        It makes intuitive sense too. Vaccines are designed to cause immunity. Viruses don't want you to be immune!

  21. The American tax code need real reform but that is a time consuming process that requires compromise. We have a lazy Congress that prefers quick gimmicks rather that the hard work needed. People with real enthusiasm for reform, say Paul Ryan, soon learn that it is hopeless and give up.

    1. We have a lazy Congress that prefers quick gimmicks rather that the hard work needed. People with real enthusiasm for reform, say Paul Ryan, soon learn that it is hopeless and give up.

      Paul Ryan was on the Bowles-Simpson commission in 2010, but ended up voting against the final report it produced. The commission had 18 members. It received 11 votes in favor. The 7 votes against came from the 3 Republican House members and 4 of the Democrats on the commission. It needed 14 votes in order for the final report to be considered "approved". It was released anyway, of course, but the lack of supermajority approval meant that it was dead as a politically viable policy proposal.

      Even someone "serious" like Paul Ryan was still stuck with completely unserious ideological commitments, such as the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes ever. Since the Bowles-Simpson plan had taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income (thus raising the rate on them), he had to oppose it. No compromise allowed on that. Lowering the corporate tax rate and marginal income tax rates at the highest brackets didn't make up for it.

      1. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Solve that and taxes can be lower. But democrats and RINOs want to increase spending. Biden wants base’ is federal spending to increase to $8.2 trillion.

        1. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

          The Bowles-Simpson plan was aimed at being revenue-neutral. It wasn't about trying to raise or lower taxes, it was about making the tax code more efficient and more stable over time and less subject to partisan and special-interest manipulation. That is a worthy goal whatever you think about whether taxes should go up or down. And it did try and address the spending issues, wanting to cap federal spending at 21% of GDP.

          Biden wants base’ is federal spending to increase to $8.2 trillion. Oh? Is that the yearly figure, which would be nearly double what it was prior to 2020? The $3.5 trillion plan is supposed to be over 10 years, so I haven't heard of any plan to nearly double federal spending.

  22. They are shipping the kiddo version now.

    Most people unvaccinated now are not going to change their minds anyway.

    Oh and GO BRAVES!

    I saw the Donald was there last night.

    didn’t he once dis Atlanta as “falling apart and crime infested”

    1. It’s criminal to push KungFlu vaccines in children. There needs to be a reckoning.

    2. To be fair, the luxury boxes have always been spotless.

  23. It's too late in the game to maintain any naivete about whether Congress can be trusted to responsibly shepherd taxpayer funds and maintain a fair and competitive tax code. But taxpayers should at least demand better than this slipshod approach of putting forward as many ideas as possible and seeing what can get passed.

    We have a dysfunctional Congress* because of the people we keep voting into office. If competence, integrity, and wanting to serve the best interests of the people of the country are not things that voters insist that a candidate possess before they even consider other factors, then you won't get very many people with those qualities in office.

    *It can be even worse at the state and local level.

  24. Democrats Have a Lot of Bad Ideas.

    This is not news.

    1. Obviously it must be news for Nazi-Indoctrinated Democratic Voters.
      But I'm sure they'll project and blame it all on everyone/everything else.

      Because that's what Nazi's do....

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.