Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

At this point of my life I’m lucky if I can even spell “tacks”. 😜

[kenberg]

At this point of my life I'm lucky if I can even spell "tacks".

 

I see my early experience, described above, with tax adjustments for teaching assistants as a very good argument for simplicity. Grad students are too busy to be a voting bloc, somehow the powers that be, or powers that were, just decided to give us a tax break. It was a pretty simple situation and they screwed it up. After several years it was somehow decided that being a teaching assistant was a really good experience for becoming a professor so they called the entire salary a non-taxable fellowship. This was not the original intent but nobody could clearly state what the original intent actually was so they just let it go as non-taxable. I had already moved on by then.

 

At the higher levels of income the situation is often a great deal more complicated and there are players with substantial financial interest and influence. Not surprisingly, possibly good ideas in the abstract get transformed into giveaways. Tax lawyers get rich, the rich avoid taxes, the intended good things don't actually happen.

 

A graduated tax is fine by me. Those with upper incomes can afford the higher rates and the government needs the cash. But beyond that, I think that we should be very cautious about trying to use various tax schemes to influence behavior. I started doing my father's income tax for him when I was 14. He installed weather stripping. In one column I listed the material he bought and the price he paid, in another column, I listed the jobs he performed and what he was paid. I added each of the columns and took the difference. The tax was on that amount. Ok, there were occasional complications because he sometimes contracted for work far enough away that he temporarily lived near the job, and those costs were deductible. Still, a 14-year-old could handle this. We should look skeptically at any tax law that makes things more complicated than that.

 

Added: Sure, I realize that not everyone is a weatherstripper or a grad student so it is more complicated than I describe. But I think my general point is right. Even with the best of intentions, complicated things can go wrong, and when money is involved intentions are often not at all good.

[Winstonm]

I see my early experience, described above, with tax adjustments for teaching assistants as a very good argument for simplicity. Grad students are too busy to be a voting bloc, somehow the powers that be, or powers that were, just decided to give us a tax break. It was a pretty simple situation and they screwed it up. After several years it was somehow decided that being a teaching assistant was a really good experience for becoming a professor so they called the entire salary a non-taxable fellowship. This was not the original intent but nobody could clearly state what the original intent actually was so they just let it go as non-taxable. I had already moved on by then.

 

At the higher levels of income the situation is often a great deal more complicated and there are players with substantial financial interest and influence. Not surprisingly, possibly good ideas in the abstract get transformed into giveaways. Tax lawyers get rich, the rich avoid taxes, the intended good things don't actually happen.

 

A graduated tax is fine by me. Those with upper incomes can afford the higher rates and the government needs the cash. But beyond that, I think that we should be very cautious about trying to use various tax schemes to influence behavior. I started doing my father's income tax for him when I was 14. He installed weather stripping. In one column I listed the material he bought and the price he paid, in another column, I listed the jobs he performed and what he was paid. I added each of the columns and took the difference. The tax was on that amount. Ok, there were occasional complications because he sometimes contracted for work far enough away that he temporarily lived near the job, and those costs were deductible. Still, a 14-year-old could handle this. We should look skeptically at any tax law that makes things more complicated than that.

 

Added: Sure, I realize that not everyone is a weatherstripper or a grad student so it is more complicated than I describe. But I think my general point is right. Even with the best of intentions, complicated things can go wrong, and when money is involved intentions are often not at all good.

I agree totally that the tax codes should be simplified, even simple. The only problem I have is with taxes like VAT that disproportinately penalize the less well off.

[akwoo]

A graduated tax is fine by me. Those with upper incomes can afford the higher rates and the government needs the cash. But beyond that, I think that we should be very cautious about trying to use various tax schemes to influence behavior. I started doing my father's income tax for him when I was 14. He installed weather stripping. In one column I listed the material he bought and the price he paid, in another column, I listed the jobs he performed and what he was paid. I added each of the columns and took the difference. The tax was on that amount. Ok, there were occasional complications because he sometimes contracted for work far enough away that he temporarily lived near the job, and those costs were deductible. Still, a 14-year-old could handle this. We should look skeptically at any tax law that makes things more complicated than that.

 

Added: Sure, I realize that not everyone is a weatherstripper or a grad student so it is more complicated than I describe. But I think my general point is right. Even with the best of intentions, complicated things can go wrong, and when money is involved intentions are often not at all good.

 

 

I think, on the contrary, we already see in this example how simple things can go wrong. Let's say your father gets a bunch of jobs in Two Harbors (well, today's Two Harbors - it's now a nice tourist town on Lake Superior). Enough jobs, with enough of a consistent clientele, that it makes sense for him to buy a house and maybe set up a small office in it instead of renting all the time. Two Harbors is a nice place, so you start visiting it on the weekend. When can it not be deducted any more? What if it turns out to be a really nice million dollar house on the lake? You see the difficulty. You could just say it should be left to common sense, perhaps as determined by a court, but rich folks can hire very persuasive lawyers.

 

Simple rules inevitably have loopholes. Rich people hire folks who figure out the loopholes. You try patching up the simple idea to close the loophole, and they find more loopholes.

[pilowsky]

In order to patch up the loopholes the Australian conservative government decided that it would be a great idea to hire Price Waterhouse Cooper to work on confidential taxation material.

Which they promptly disseminated to wealthy customers to help them 'minimise' tax.

You just can't trust anyone to pay their share.

 

When the US govt decided it didn't want to deal with so many arms suppliers the Govt forced them to amalgamate into price gouging monopolies.

Now they can't afford to buy parts for their coffee-makers.

And now there's another debt ceiling crisis.

[johnu]

In order to patch up the loopholes the Australian conservative government decided that it would be a great idea to hire Price Waterhouse Cooper to work on confidential taxation material.

Which they promptly disseminated to wealthy customers to help them 'minimise' tax.

 

Sounds like PWC is trying to follow in Arthur Andersen's steps.

[Gilithin]

In other US news, the Supreme Court appears to be completely out of control now, following up on their obviously political and probably unconstitutional prior decisions by essentially repealing the Clean Water Act of 1972. One might ask how much the polluting companies paid Clarence Thomas and co for that one. In the end it will be the American people that suffer from this.

[shyams]

In other US news, the Supreme Court appears to be completely out of control now, following up on their obviously political and probably unconstitutional prior decisions by essentially repealing the Clean Water Act of 1972. One might ask how much the polluting companies paid Clarence Thomas and co for that one. In the end it will be the American people that suffer from this.

 

I thought it was a 9-0 decision, although 4 of 9 dissented with the majority 5 for the rationale behind the (unanimous) decision.

[Gilithin]

I thought it was a 9-0 decision, although 4 of 9 dissented with the majority 5 for the rationale behind the (unanimous) decision.

Even Kavanaugh dissented on the core decision to roll back more or less all of the Clean Water Act. The SCOTUS decision overturns over 50 years of precedent for how this was interpreted, even going further than the already extreme position of the Trump administration. The end effect is that there is basically no floor now to environmental impact, meaning that the US goes back to the pre-1972 days of purely local regulations.

[kenberg]

I think, on the contrary, we already see in this example how simple things can go wrong. Let's say your father gets a bunch of jobs in Two Harbors (well, today's Two Harbors - it's now a nice tourist town on Lake Superior). Enough jobs, with enough of a consistent clientele, that it makes sense for him to buy a house and maybe set up a small office in it instead of renting all the time. Two Harbors is a nice place, so you start visiting it on the weekend. When can it not be deducted any more? What if it turns out to be a really nice million dollar house on the lake? You see the difficulty. You could just say it should be left to common sense, perhaps as determined by a court, but rich folks can hire very persuasive lawyers.

 

Simple rules inevitably have loopholes. Rich people hire folks who figure out the loopholes. You try patching up the simple idea to close the loophole, and they find more loopholes.

 

Thinking about it, I agree you have a point. Just for amusement: Back in the early 70s the annual Math meeting was in Las Vegas. There were many large signs welcoming some other groups and occasional small signs welcoming the American Mathematical Society. I recall seeing a group of mathematicians in a room full of slot machines, they were all discussing theorems, no one was putting money into anything. I did bring my wife, a previous wife, not Becky, and we did spend an evening watching Buddy Hackett entertain us after a warm-up performance by Charo, but I think the casinos and all were happy to ss us go. As I recall the decision to meet in Las Vegas was a last-minute one, We were scheduled to meet somewhere else but the somewhere else had overbooked so they had to cancel someone and mathematicians seemed like a good choice for cancellation.

 

As to my father, my mother and I, along with my dog Judy, did go with him once when he was taking a day or two to write up a cost estimate for a job up in Park Rapids MN. I was maybe 8 or so. We couldn't find a hotel, or at least not one that would take in a springer spaniel, so we slept in the park. I enjoyed it but we did not repeat the experience.

 

But yes, even simple things can go astray. But I do think that having the tax code be simple enough so that in most cases a 14-year-old can do the family taxes is a good goal.

[Winstonm]

I think most people miss the primary goal of the 35% of Republicans that make up the base, which, to be elected as a Republican, must be appeased; these people are not satisfied with a smaller federal government; they want no federal government, a return to the articles of federation where states have all the power.

 

Once this is understood, their actions are understandable and predictable.

 

The problem we have is rational people trying to deal with the irrational as rational. It is rather pointless to debate tax codes in a gunfight.

 

These people want to dismantle this country by holding hostage the Republican party and they are succeeding. Negotiating with a gun to your head is fairly pointless.

 

PS: I find this extraordinary: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-ken-paxton-impeachment_n_647220b5e4b091b09c2d4dbb

The last place I thought cared about corruption.

[johnu]

I recall seeing a group of mathematicians in a room full of slot machines, they were all discussing theorems, no one was putting money into anything. I did bring my wife, a previous wife, not Becky, and we did spend an evening watching Buddy Hackett entertain us after a warm-up performance by Charo, but I think the casinos and all were happy to ss us go.

 

AFAIK, most math people who know statistics are terrible gamblers for Las Vegas because they know the house odds and have a hard time betting when they know the odds are against them. Basically the only time I play anything other than poker is if I get some casino lucky bucks, either free chips, or 2 for 1 coupons.

[johnu]

I think most people miss the primary goal of the 35% of Republicans that make up the base, which, to be elected as a Republican, must be appeased; these people are not satisfied with a smaller federal government; they want no federal government, a return to the articles of federation where states have all the power.

 

Once this is understood, their actions are understandable and predictable.

The last place I thought cared about corruption.

 

Basically Republicans think money grows on trees. They want lower or no taxes, but they love Social Security and Medicare, the most powerful military in the world by as much as possible, government handouts when disasters strike, and government programs that benefit them. And they definitely do not like it when government benefits go to "those" people.

[pilowsky]

And now the debt ceiling date has been moved to the day that was originally planned to be D-day before it was delayed by weather.

[kenberg]

Perhaps we are once again going to avoid catastrophe with the debt limit. I suggest a new law: Any needed adjustment to the debt limit must be enacted at least thirty days before that limit is reached. If this is not done, then 50K will be deducted from the salary of each member of the House and 100K will be deducted from the salary of the president.

 

Regardless of how budget planning should be done, the way that it is now done is an absurd embarrassment to the nation. I suppose that a lot f money can be made by following the budget talks closely day to day. One day it looks like default, get in there early and sell. Another day it looks like there could be an agreement, get in there early and buy buy buy. That's not me and I do not wish it to ever be me. I want these jerks to resolve the issues with a great deal less drama and preening.

 

We will see how this goes. Of course a deal isn't done until it is done. It is impossible to fully make it clear how fed up I am with this way of doing things. I'm an honest guy who wants the best for this country and high on my list is finding a better way to resolve budget issues. Yes it is money and yes there is political stuff involved but find a better way. The current way makes us all look like idiots. They look like idiots for doing it, we look like idiots for putting up with it.

[pilowsky]

Perhaps we are once again going to avoid catastrophe with the debt limit. I suggest a new law: Any needed adjustment to the debt limit must be enacted at least thirty days before that limit is reached. If this is not done, then 50K will be deducted from the salary of each member of the House and 100K will be deducted from the salary of the president.

 

Regardless of how budget planning should be done, the way that it is now done is an absurd embarrassment to the nation. I suppose that a lot f money can be made by following the budget talks closely day to day. One day it looks like default, get in there early and sell. Another day it looks like there could be an agreement, get in there early and buy buy buy. That's not me and I do not wish it to ever be me. I want these jerks to resolve the issues with a great deal less drama and preening.

 

We will see how this goes. Of course a deal isn't done until it is done. It is impossible to fully make it clear how fed up I am with this way of doing things. I'm an honest guy who wants the best for this country and high on my list is finding a better way to resolve budget issues. Yes it is money and yes there is political stuff involved but find a better way. The current way makes us all look like idiots. They look like idiots for doing it, we look like idiots for putting up with it.

Maybe the stupidly low salaries paid to the President ($400,000) and representatives ($170,000) is part of why they seem to be prone to getting funds from other sources.

 

 

 

[kenberg]

Being hopelessly optimistic, I think this budget deal could be a turning point. No doubt there will be Rs who vote against it and Ds who vote against it. But perhaps it will pass. And then perhaps, just perhaps, a large portion of the electorate will see this as some of our leaders can come together, some stick with my way or the highway, and they decide they prefer come together as an approach. This could play a role in the 2024 election.

 

We shall see. I admit I keep seeing turning points where none exist. But we shall see.

 

At the very least, having the next debt limit crisis occur after the 2024 election will encourage voters to take what has happened in these negotiations into account as they cast a ballot. If the deal goes through, I imagine there will be a poll not so far down the road asking voters what they think. I A sample question: In the final vote for passage, who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys? Those who voted yes or those who voted no? I hope such a question is asked.

[Winstonm]

I have no such hope that our infotainment industry will do anything other than self promotion and stenography of bothsideism.

 

Here is a question I would prefer seen:

1) 30% of Republicans are hard core Trump supporters

2) Trump’s plan is to run the United States like the Trump Organization.

3) Are the 30% enemies of the United States?

[shyams]

3) Are the 30% enemies of the United States?

 

I am not American, but if I were asked to opine on this question, my answer would be a resounding no.

[Winstonm]

I am not American, but if I were asked to opine on this question, my answer would be a resounding no.

 

Perhaps the question is poorly worded: are the 30% of Republicans who are hard core supporters of Trump enemies of democracy and democratic republics?

 

If you still say no, will you kindly explain your viewpoint and reasons.

[Cyberyeti]

Perhaps the question is poorly worded: are the 30% of Republicans who are hard core supporters of Trump enemies of democracy and democratic republics?

 

If you still say no, will you kindly explain your viewpoint and reasons.

 

Was going to say, not enemies of the US but enemies of democracy.

[shyams]

I don't have a dog in the fight; I am not American. However, here is a childishly simple view that I hold:

 

1. All politicians are corrupt; none have the interests of the average citizen at heart. (Note: broadly applicable to many nations, not just the US)

* US politicians are specialists in getting filthy rich, and getting repeatedly reelected. At least the British politician is (on average) not hellbent on becoming millionaires.

 

2. The Romans had learnt two thousand years ago that the masses can be kept satiated with "panem et circenses" (bread and games/gladiator fights). In modern times, issue-based divisive politics serves the function of circenses.

 

3. Some citizens engage in these "existential" issues (many of which are trivial, some of marginally importance). In doing so, they feel invested that they are defining the future of their nation. Concurrently, those with real power are defining your nation --- and finding innovative ways to get even more powerful and richer.

 

This pernicious divisiveness foisted upon average citizens by those who want to control you is the key problem. One way to thwart those who want to control you is to do the opposite --- have dialogues, make friends, go on dates or generally hang out with those that hold the opposite political views. In my limited experience, Americans are the only people who reject engaging with people of "the opposite party".

 

Sorry if this sounds like cliched baloney. But to me, a distant observer, you all are destroying yourselves by fighting these irrelevant fights.

[Winstonm]

I don't have a dog in the fight; I am not American. However, here is a childishly simple view that I hold:

 

1. All politicians are corrupt; none have the interests of the average citizen at heart. (Note: broadly applicable to many nations, not just the US)

* US politicians are specialists in getting filthy rich, and getting repeatedly reelected. At least the British politician is (on average) not hellbent on becoming millionaires.

 

2. The Romans had learnt two thousand years ago that the masses can be kept satiated with "panem et circenses" (bread and games/gladiator fights). In modern times, issue-based divisive politics serves the function of circenses.

 

3. Some citizens engage in these "existential" issues (many of which are trivial, some of marginally importance). In doing so, they feel invested that they are defining the future of their nation. Concurrently, those with real power are defining your nation --- and finding innovative ways to get even more powerful and richer.

 

This pernicious divisiveness foisted upon average citizens by those who want to control you is the key problem. One way to thwart those who want to control you is to do the opposite --- have dialogues, make friends, go on dates or generally hang out with those that hold the opposite political views. In my limited experience, Americans are the only people who reject engaging with people of "the opposite party".

 

Sorry if this sounds like cliched baloney. But to me, a distant observer, you all are destroying yourselves by fighting these irrelevant fights.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. As often happens, there is difficulty with the written word to express pricise views, and to some amount I agree with a lot of your positions. I do think the US has become a de facto oligarchy, or near that, although the governental structure requires owning or subverting imany individuals or one political party in near total--quite difficult to do. I used to think the parties were basically the same, but no more. I think you have to live here to know that as the biggest differences are shown at the state and local levels rather that national.

 

Then we have to discuss or at least figure out what "enemy" means in this context. Perhaprs a poor choice of words. Misguided? Conned? I don't know. I do know, my wife's sister, for example, who, by the way, I like a lot and do not avoid, is an ardent Trump admirer, and these people can justify to themselves that his power as president is their power, and their fervent belief is that the United States was established as a white Christian country and only a return to that dynamic can save us for some unknown and unspecified horrible end.

These people believe in a fictional account of what it means to be American. Rather than enemies, are they cult victims? Even then, as cult victims, could the Jim Jones followers be deemed "enemies of life" as well as cult victims?

 

All I know is that there are a significant number of Americans who believe that a king or near king who returns us to a fictional beginning is preferable to democracy; what do you term them?

 

[kenberg]

I am pleased to report that my current Congressman, John Sarbanes Jr, and my previous Congressman (before the last redistricting) Jamie Raskin, voted in favor of avoiding default. Consider this a public thank-you note guys. Let's get things done.

[Winstonm]

I am pleased to report that my current Congressman, John Sarbanes Jr, and my previous Congressman (before the last redistricting) Jamie Raskin, voted in favor of avoiding default. Consider this a public thank-you note guys. Let's get things done.

 

All our Oklahoma clones voted no. Hera’s to the Oklahoma division of the Trump army, and no, that finger I am holding up does not mean you are #1.